The Boreal Borges - BYU ScholarsArchive

Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive
All Theses and Dissertations
2013-05-31
The Boreal Borges
Jonathan C. Williams
Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Classics Commons, and the Comparative Literature Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Williams, Jonathan C., "The Boreal Borges" (2013). All Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3597.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected].
The Boreal Borges
Jonathan C. Williams
A thesis submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Steven Sondrup, Chair
David Laraway
Larry Peer
Department of Humanities, Classics, and Comparative Literature
Brigham Young University
June 2013
Copyright © 2013 Jonathan C. Williams
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
The Boreal Borges
Jonathan C. Williams
Department of Humanities, Classics, and Comparative Literature, BYU
Master of Arts
Jorge Luis Borges’s story “El Zahir” describes a moment where the
protagonist finds rest from his monomania by reworking one of the central texts
in Old Germanic myth, the story of Sigurd and Brynhild. The approach taken
here by the protagonist is the paradigm used in this thesis for understanding
Borges’s own strong readings of Old Germanic literature, specifically Old
Scandinavian texts.
In chapter one, a brief outline of the myth of Sigurd and Brynhild, with a
particular emphasis on Gram, the sword that lied between them, is provided and
juxtaposed with Borges’s own family history, focusing on the family’s storied
military past. This image of the sword as the symbol for the north and its relation
to Borges’s family and political interests is sustained throughout the thesis.
Chapter two is a survey of the various facets of Borges’s literary output that were
influenced by Nordic myth and literary styles: first, literary criticism, second,
poetry and prose, and third, translation. The survey shows that Borges’s
engagement with the north began early and was maintained throughout his life.
Likewise, after working through seven works from disparate periods it becomes
clear that Borges is not merely introducing the Spanish speaking world to Old
Scandinavian texts, but, in the same fashion as the protagonist in “El Zahir,”
subsuming them in a way that is uniquely Borgesian. The third chapter follows
the same approach as the survey but focuses on Borges’s short stories, specifically
two short stories from his collection entitled Libro de Arena: “Ulrica” and
“Undr.” Many of the conclusions that emerged in the survey are further validated
in the analysis of these two stories, but with greater emphasis on how they relate
to Borges’s later years, and the themes that begin to surround his preparation for
death.
The concluding chapter summarizes the findings of the previous three
chapters by way of a close reading of Borges’s tombstone. Each aspect of the
stone is connected to Old Germanic myth and how that symbolized the eventual
consummation of his joy: the sword that kept him separated from love was
eventually lifted, as it was for Ulrica and Javier in “Ulrica.”
Keywords: Jorge Luis Borges, Old Norse, Völsunga Saga, borgesian, Literatura
Germanica Medieval, influence, strong reading
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I appreciate the patience and support of my committee. Steven Sondrup
has been a good friend and a trusted mentor throughout the process, and I am
grateful for his valued comments and encouragement, and especially for his
willingness to work within tight timeframes. My interest in Borges began with
David Laraway. His enthusiasm is contagious and I will long be in his debt for his
help with this project. Beyond this thesis, Larry Peer gave me important advice at
a crucial time, and I will long be thankful for that.
My family has been very patient with me as I’ve worked through these
labyrinths. Megan especially has helped me focus and continue working even
when it would have been more fun to do otherwise.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...…………………………………………………………………………………………………..II
Acknowledements………………………………………………………………………………………III
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………..IV
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………1
Chapter 2: Survey……………………………………………………………………………………….20
Chapter 3: “Undr” and “Ulrica”……………………………………………………………………66
Chapter 4: Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..86
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………………….92
Appendix.................................................................................................................95
iv
Chapter 1
“hann tekr ſverdit gram ok leggr
i meðal þeirra bęrt” (Vǫlsunga 174)
“he takes the sword Gram and lays it
unsheathed between them.” (Vǫlsunga 175)
Introduction
What are the connections between Old Norse Literature and the works of Jorge
Luis Borges? Was there a relationship of influence? Are the similarities between
the two enough to justify a full-length inquiry? In his 1953 essay entitled “La
literatura alemana en la época de Bach” (“German Literature in the Age of Bach”)
Borges wrote:
En el ilustre ensayo de De Quincey sobre el asesinato considerado como
una de las bellas artes, hay una referencia a un libro sobre Islandia. Ese
libro, escrito por un viajero holandés, tiene un capítulo que se ha hecho
famoso en la literatura inglesa, y al que alude Chesterton alguna vez. Es un
capítulo titulado “Sobre las serpientes de Islandia”; es muy breve,
suficiente y lacónico: consta de esta única frase: “Serpientes en Islandia,
no hay.” (312)
In De Quincey’s famous essay on murder considered as one of the fine
arts, there is a reference to a book about Iceland. That book, written by a
Dutch traveler, has a chapter which has become famous in English
literature and was mentioned by Chesterton. It is a chapter entitled ‘On
1
the Snakes in Iceland,’ and it is brief and to the point, as it consists of a
single sentence: ‘Snakes in Iceland; there aren’t any.’ (Selected NonFiction 427)
In a review of the Complete Sagas of the Icelanders Joe Allard writes of the saga
style:
Genealogy and poetry aside, the saga narrative style is straightforward.
New readers are usually struck by a prose that is laconic, terse and
succinct. Events dominate the narrative, and characters, once introduced,
are shown in significant action. The sagas are often concerned with
disputes and feuds, so there are many bloody episodes. (161)
In Borges’s obituary Edward A. Gargan characterized Borges’s style in the
following way:
Many of the basic literary elements that came to characterize Mr. Borges's
style were apparent: a concern for history and identity; the central role of
an obscure scholarly work; a maze of discourse laden with elaborate and
Byzantine detail; footnotes; meticulous references to remote academic
journals, and the presence of deliberately translucent paradox.
And, further, in the OED, under “Borgesian” it reads: “Characteristic or
reminiscent of the work of Borges, esp. of the intricate, labyrinthine nature of his
fictional worlds.”
Thus with these characterizations in mind, the directness of the saga and
the labyrinthine qualities of Borges, one could feel justified in writing on the
points of intersection between Old Norse saga style and Borges’s prose, to
conclude, “Influence of Old Norse saga style on Borges’s prose; there is none.”
2
In the course of this thesis, however, it will become clear that for the works
of Borges and the literature of the North, there are indeed major points where
one begins to bear a resemblance to the other, where what is Borgesian and what
is sagaesque seem consonant. For as the preface to the seven-volume
concordance of Borges’s fiction appropriately attests, “In his own dilettante and
individual way, Borges the librarian plundered the world of learning to produce a
labyrinth of allusions.” (Ibister I:i) To that end, to see where one meets the other,
the best point of entry is, perhaps, the same through which Borges entered,
through the story of Odin’s sword.
A Sword’s Story
At the great betrothal feast of Signy, the daughter of Vǫlsung, to Siggeir, king of
Gothland, a man with one eye, no shoes, and breaches sewn on so tightly they
seem to hug the bone, entered the great hall, approached the tree, Branstock (that
grew through the center of Vǫlsung’s hall) and drove his sword into its trunk and
declaimed, “ſa er þesv sverði. begdr o ſtockinum þa skal [sa] þat þiggia at mer ath
giof. ok ſkal hann þat sealfr ſanna. at allðri bar hann betra sverð ser j henðe [en
þetta er].” (Vǫlsunga 82) [“Whoso draweth this sword from this stock, shall have
the same as a gift from me, and shall find in good sooth that never bare he better
sword in hand than is this.” (Morris 7)] The old man vanishes, just as
mysteriously as he came and leaves the men to sort out who will try their mettle
first, as all are convinced that the sword will take little more than the first pull.
One after another tries and fails to draw the sword from its place until finally
Sigmund, son of Vǫlsung, a man known for his prodigious strength even from his
3
youth, steps up and “tok ok ba sverðinv o ſtockinum ok var sem lauſt lęgi fyrir
honum.” [“pulls it from the stock, even as if it lay loose before him” (Morris 7)].
Thus begins the story of Gramr [Gram], the sword pulled from Branstock
and its owner Sigmund. With it Sigmund fights the forces of his treacherous
brother in law Siggeir, kills at her own request, the little whelps of Signy, achieves
revenge for his father’s death, and defends his realm in the Hunlands, and upon
his demise his son, Sigurd, is given the sword, and with it coaxed by Regin, smith
to the king, to use it to obtain Fafnir the dragon’s gold.
He seeks out Fafnir and develops a plan to kill the beast while it is
drinking from a lake. When Fafnir comes down to the lake, Sigurd shoves the
sword through his soft underbelly, and out comes the blood, Sigurd safe all the
while. Before Fafnir expires, he warns Sigurd that the gold is cursed, and that it is
sure to bring him ill fortune. Sigurd disregards the warning, and pulls away the
gold with his horse Grani, but not before first being told by the birds that Regin
has dark intentions, and then, using Gramr, chops off his head.
On his way back to his mother he comes across a structure made of shields
and topped with a banner. In it he finds a sleeping maiden decked out in the
trappings of war. With Gramr he cuts through the armor, as if it were fabric, and
awakens the warrior: “hun spurde hvat sva var mattukt er beith byniuna ok bra
minum svefne” (Vǫlsunga 146) [“she asked—‘What thing of great might is it that
has prevailed to rend my byrny, and draw me from my sleep?’” (Morris 69)].
Sigurd says that it was he, a Vǫlsung, and prompts her to tell the story of how she
came to be imprisoned in her own armor and in a castle of shields. She says that
she is Brynhild, Valkyrie of Odin, and after favoring a king in battle against
4
Odin’s wish, she was made mortal, doomed to suffer the pains of flesh and to be
taken in marriage; she resists complete abasement, however, by vowing to only
marry a man that knows no fear. Sigurd is smitten and vows himself to her and
gives her a ring from Andvari’s hoard. He then leaves, not to meet her again until
much later.
From Brynhild’s keep, he goes to the castle of king Gjuki. Gjuki is married
to Grimhild, the sorceress, and with her he has four children: three boys Gunnar,
Hogni, and Guttorm and one girl, Gudrun. After Sigurd spends time among them,
Grimhild becomes determined that he will be her son-in-law. She makes a tonic
of forgetfulness so that Brynhild and the commitment that Sigurd had with her
will be lost to memory. It is short order before Sigurd and Gudrun are married.
Once Gudrun is married, her two oldest brothers, Gunnar and Hogni, swear their
allegiance to Sigurd and commit themselves to be as brothers in blood, and
together they’re able to accomplish remarkable deeds. As time passes Grimhild
comes to congratulate Gunnar on his achievements and also to sway him to woo
Brynhild to be his wife.
Gunnar asks his brothers and Sigurd to go with him on his conquest of
Brynhild. When they get to the wall of flames that protected her keep, Gunnar
charges the flames but doesn’t have the courage to prod his horse on further. He
asks Sigurd if he can try it while riding Grani. Sigurd agrees, but Gunnar only
meets the same end. Finally they shift shapes, as Grimhild had taught them, so
Gunnar appeared as Sigurd and Sigurd as Gunnar, and Sigurd mounts Grani and
charges through the flames. Waiting on the other side was Brynhild. She asks his
name, and he says he is Gunnar son of king Gjuki come to ask for her hand. She,
5
overwhelmed by his fearlessness and authentic manliness, responds, “eigi veit ek
giorla hverſu ek ſkal þesv sv(ara)” (172) [“I scarcely know what to say” (173)]. For
three days and three nights Sigurd, as Gunnar, stays with Brynhild in one bed,
but, to her great confusion, “hann tekr ſverdit gram ok leggr i meðal þeirra bęrt”
(174) [“he takes the sword Gram and lays it unsheathed between them” (175)];
the sword was to act as a barrier that symbolized his loyalty to Gunnar and
commitment to Gudrun.
After the time spent in Brynhild’s keep, Sigurd reunites with Gunnar and
the men waiting outside the wall of fire. After receiving council from her stepdad,
Brynhild leaves for the keep of king Gjuki to be married, to then consummate
their love: in her mind have the sword removed.
When Gunnar and Brynhild have married they live near Sigurd and
Gudrun, and on one particular day, as Gudrun and Brynhild were out together
they have an argument. As things heat up, Gudrun reveals that Brynhild was
actually lying next to Sigurd for those three days, and that it was he that dared
brave the flames. Brynhild is incensed and inconsolable. For her it signifies a
complete betrayal of her standards and trust: it had been a vow that marked her
commitment to live as the gods, even in her punishment.
After a number of days, Brynhild devises a plan to exact revenge. She tells
Gunnar that she and Sigurd slept together in her keep, that the sword Gramr had
not been placed between them. She convinces him that his connubial response
should be decisive: kill Sigurd. Gunnar, however, being bound by his bond of
brotherhood, devises with his brother Hogni (who shared the commitment) to
drug their youngest brother with a potion of rage, and direct it to Sigurd.
6
Guttorm, after receiving the potion, goes to the bedchamber of Gudrun and
Sigurd while they’re sleeping and stabs Sigurd with such force that the sword
passes through him and into the baseboard of the bed. As he’s in retreat, “Sigurdr
vaknar vid ſarit enn gvtthormr geck vt til dyranna þa tok sigurdr sverdit gram ok
kaſtar eptir honum ok kom a bakit ok tok i ſunð i midiv fell annan veg fota lvtr
enn annan havfuit ok hendurrnar aptr i ſkemmvna.” (192) [“Sigurd awoke with
that wound, and Guttorm gat him unto the door; but therewith Sigurd caught up
the sword Gram, and cast it after him, and it smote him on the back, and struck
him asunder in the midst, so that the feet of him fell one way, and the head and
hands back into the chamber.” (Morris 115)]
After Sigurd reassures his wife that she’ll never find better, that her
brothers will never have a better brother-in-law, and that Brynhild orchestrated
all of this, he dies, to be avenged by Gudrun who marries Brynhild’s brother Atli
and kills Gunnar, Hogni, and Guttorm.
The death brings little comfort to Brynhild. Indeed, she berates Gunnar for
breaking his oath to Sigurd, when Sigurd was so loyal that when he “kom til vo
hve hann hellt ſina eida at hann lagde ockar. i mille it ſnarp eggiada ſverd þat er
eittri var hert” (194) [“came to me (he) laid betwixt us the sharp-edged
sword that in venom had been made hard” (Morris 125)]. She goes on to
say that her heart was ever committed to the son of Sigmund, Fafnir’sbane, and since now he was dead, she no longer had the desire to live. She
brings out all of her gold, lays it before the people, telling them to take
what they want, and then stabs herself up through the chest. Before she
7
dies she asks Gunnar that he agree to her last request to have a large
funeral pyre built and to lay hers and Sigurd’s bodies next to each other
and “latit þar a milli ockar brugdit sverð sem fyr er vid ſtigum a einn bęð ok
heitum þa hiona ok eigi fellr honum þa hvð a hęla” (196–98) [“lay there betwixt
us a drawn sword, as in the other days when we twain stepped into one bed
together” (Morris 127)]. The sword, of course, was Gramr, gift of Odin.
Thus ends the story of Gramr, intimately and inextricably connected with
the fate of Sigmund and Sigurd, father and son. Received as a gift from Odin, it
proves instrumental in both securing and maintaining family honor—it becomes
a symbol of loyalty and filial duty.
Borges and the Sword
The figure of the ancestral warrior—a composite of Colonel Suárez
[Borges’s maternal great grandfather] and Colonel Borges [Borges’s
Paternal grandfather]—would cast a very long shadow over Georgie. The
swords of the two heroes were displayed like sacred relics in the family
home in Palermo…. Wherever he looked, Georgie was confronted by the
ghosts of his venerable ancestors, holding aloft, as it were, the sword of
honor that had conferred such distinction upon them all. (Williamson 38)
Jorge Luis Borges was born and reared in his mother’s ancestral home on calle
Tucumán where, from his father and paternal grandmother (Fanny Haslam), and
also from his mother, he listened to the semi-mythic tales of his ancestors and
inherited their anxieties.
8
Borges’s mother, Leonor, was born into an old and decorated unitario (a
liberal group that supported the centralization of the government) family. Her
grandfather, Isidoro Suárez, was particularly well known as the great hero of
Junín, one of the last engagements in the liberation of South America. As the
story goes, on August 6, 1824, on the high mountain peaks of Peru, Isidoro led
the cavalry charge, at the tender age of twenty-four that turned the tide of the
battle of Junín, a battle fought not with muskets or canons, but with the brute
force of horse, man, and sword. The sword thus becomes the family symbol for
the honor and history of their great people. After his victory, Isidoro was
promoted by Bolívar himself to the rank of colonel and went on to perform
valiantly in the last battle, Ayacucho, which ended Spanish reign in the Americas.
He was a national hero in Argentina and a continental hero for all of Latin
America.
Borges’s paternal grandfather, Colonel Francisco Borges, has a more
complicated story. From nineteen up to his death he served in the military,
eventually reaching the rank of colonel. He was an intense nationalist who felt
compelled to live or die for his country and thus gained fame as a decorated
soldier in the fight against the chaos of the pampas. As Argentinians embraced
the European enlightenment, they became ever more interested in civilizing its
frontier and subjugating its people, the gauchos. The object that emerges as the
symbol of this wild, uncivilized, and history-void place and people, from Borges’s
pen, was the dagger. Francisco had a number of victories that won him fame and
respect, but, as an influential military leader, it wasn’t long before he became
entangled in political wrangling, such that he eventually forfeited his position
9
with one faction to take up arms for the other, which, incidentally, was the losing
one. He died in one of the early, and only, battles of the political conflict. Fanny
Haslam, Francisco’s wife and Jorge Luis Borges’s grandmother, a proud English
woman, was left to raise their two sons with little money and no position.
Francisco’s death was devastating for the family’s sense of identity and honor.
Fanny spent Jorge Borges’s (Jorge Luis’s father) childhood re-contextualizing
and revising the story of her husband’s defeat.
Thus, due to political trappings, Francisco Borges was lost to the annals of
honor, a fate, in fact, not altogether different from that of the hero of Junín,
Colonel Suárez. After he had won fame as the great liberator and leader of the
war of independence, he, much like Francisco, picked the losing side. Juan
Manuel de Rosas was the political leader at the time whose rise to prominence
relied on the slogan “long live the Federation! Death to the filthy, savage
Unitarios” (Williamson 5). Colonel Suarez was Unitario and so necessarily died in
exile.
As these illustrious ancestors of Borges died, in exile and obscurity, their
ancestors languished in their bygone glory. Colonel Suárez’s granddaughter,
Leonor, and Colonel Borges’s son, Jorge, grew up hearing stories of honor and
wealth lost, one day, perhaps, to be recovered by their descendants. When Leonor
and Jorge married and the lines of these two storied families fused, the quest for
a return to stature and greatness was amplified. They would rear their two
children, nested in the family mansion-museum, suffused with the family lore.
For Leonor especially, rescuing the family name was little less than an obsession,
10
an obsession that like her parents pushed her to teach little Jorge Luis about the
family and his role in rescuing it.
Jorge Luis went on to dedicate, in a way, his life to that mission of
recovery, of bringing back the rightful family fame. Unlike his father and
maternal grandfather, however, he would be successful. So successful that he
exceeded anything his ancestors achieved. For him it was in his literature, most
particularly from his short stories, for which he was recognized as a master of
Spanish prose, creating, as some view it, a space for Spanish literature in the
general, international community. In short, Jorge Luis, was the fulfillment of the
potential of his lineage.
This ascent was not without its anxieties and fears. As Williamson asserts,
for Jorge Luis Borges there was always conflict, a conflict between honor and
independence, between savagery and civilization, between conformity and
abandon. In his works, the two sides of this conflict are symbolized, on the one
side—that of honor—it took the symbol of the sword: the great battle of Junín and
of Isidor Suárez was fought with swords and strength, the last stand of Francisco
Borges (as told by Leonor) was with Francisco brandishing his sword in defiance
of the forces that threatened the liberty of the people. On the other side, it was the
dagger that pressed itself on the consciousness of Borges as the emblem of chaos:
Francisco went on the pampas to bring an end to the anarchy, the bedlam of the
gauchos who were known for their knife fights and opposition to authority.
11
“El Zahir” and the Sword
In Borges’s “El Zahir,” the protagonist, also named Borges, attempts to chronicle
the history of his brief, consuming obsession with a coin. The story itself can be
broken down into three parts: the crush on Teodelina Villar, receiving and
possessing the Zahir, and the memory of it all.
Teodelina was a model, socialite, and fashionista, who had been featured
in various cosmetic and automobile adds and had prided herself in perfection.
When she died on the sixth of June, leaving the narrator and the rest of the world
spinning, Borges (the protagonist) laments the awkward attempts at eulogizing
someone so crucial and central to human consciousness, and thus attempts to do
it himself. He comments on how in the natural course of decay, her face appears
as it once did twenty years previous, full of dignity and pride. Of this
transformation he remarks,
sus rasgos recobraron la autoridad que dan la soberbia, el dinero, la
juventud, la conciencia de coronar una jerarquía, la falta de imaginación,
las limitaciones, la estolidez. Más o menos pensé: ninguna versión de esa
cara que tanto me inquietó sera tan memorable como ésta; conviene que
sea la última, ya que pudo ser la primera. (El Aleph 121)
her features recovered the authority supplied by hauteur, money, youth,
the awareness of crowning a hierarchy, a lack of imagination, a certain
limitation, stolidity. I thought, more or less, thus: no version of this face,
which had so unsettled me, will be as memorable as the one I now saw;
better that it be the last, especially since it could have been the first.
(Personal 130)
12
After making this observation he leaves Teodelina’s wake and walks through the
city in a sad and disoriented stupor. Around three in the morning, he comes
across a bar that is still open. After ordering a glass of brandy he receives his
change. It is there that he encounters the Zahir: a small coin with a number of
markings that looks as if someone had taken a penknife to it. While
contemplating the coin, he thinks of the way that coins represents human desire
and free will; i.e. how everything from the music of Brahms to chess pieces can be
found in (or bought with) a coin. He philosophizes about the nature of the
universe and the ephemerality of man, here, early on, realizing that the coin has
the power to consume his consciousness, to be the one all-consuming thought.
The next morning he wakes with the conviction that it was all a dream, but that it
is still important to dispose of the coin. He deliberately loses himself in the city,
ignoring anything that would help him if he were to try and recover the coin, and
eventually spends it, conscientiously, studiously ignoring his surroundings.
Between losing the coin in this way and spending what he assumes will be
the rest of his life, his every moment wearing it away with his thoughts, he has a
brief period of reprieve. In his words:
Hasta fines de junio me distrajo la tarea de componer un relato fantástico.
Éste encierra dos o tres perífrasis enigmáticas—en lugar de sangre pone
agua de la espada; en lugar de oro, lecho de la serpiente—y está escrito en
primera persona. El narrador es una asceta que ha renunciado al trato de
los hombres y vive en una suerte de páramo. (Gnitaheidr es el nombre de
ese lugar.) Dado el candor y la sencillez de su vida, hay quienes lo juzgan
un ángel; ello es una piadosa exageración, porque no hay hombre que esté
13
libre de culpa. Sin ir más lejos, él mismo ha degollado a su padre; bien es
verdad que éste era un famoso hechicero que se había apoderado, por
artes mágicas, de un tesoro infinito. Resguardar el tesoro de la insana
codicia de los humanos es la misión a la que ha dedicado su vida; día y
noche vela sobre él. Pronto, quizá demasiado pronto, esa vigilia tendrá fin:
las estrellas le han dicho que ya se ha forjado la espada que la tronchará
para siempre (Gram es el nombre de esa espada.) En un estilo cada vez
más tortuoso, pondera el brillo y la flexibilidad de su cuerpo; en algún
párrafo habla distraídamente de escamas; en otro dice que el tesoro que
guarda es de oro fulgurante y de anillos rojos. Al final entendemos que el
asceta es la serpiente Fafnir y el tesoro en que yace, el de los Nibelungos.
La aparición de Sigurd corta bruscamente la historia.
He dicho que la ejecución de esa fruslería (en cuyo decurso
intercalé, seudoeruditamente, algún verso de la Fáfnismál) me permitió
olvidar la moneda. (El Aleph 124–6)
The composition of a tale of fantasy served to distract me until the
end of June. This tale involves two or three enigmatic periphrases: in place
of blood I wrote sword’s water; gold is serpent’s bed. And the story is told
in the first person. The narrator is an ascetic who has renounced all
dealings with men and who lives in a kind of desert. (The name of this
place is Gnitaheidr.) He leads a simple candid life, and some people,
therefore, consider him an angel; such a view is a pious exaggeration, for
no man is free of sin. To go no further afield, our man has cut his father’s
throat; true enough, the father was a famous wizard and had gotten his
14
hands on an infinite treasure by the use of magical arts. Our man, then,
has now dedicated his life to guarding this treasure from the insane greed
of humankind. He stands watch day and night. Soon perhaps too soon, his
vigil will come to an end: the stars have revealed to him that the sword
which will cut it short has already been forged. (The name of the swords is
Gram.) In an increasingly tortuous style, he considers the sheen and
suppleness of his own body; in some paragraph or other he speaks
distractedly of body scales; in still another he states that the treasure he
guards is a hoard of fulgent gold and reddish rings. Finally we realize that
the ascetic is the serpent Fafnir and that the treasure on which he lies is
the Treasure of the Nibelungs. The appearance of Sigurd brings the story
to an abrupt end.
As I have already said, the composition of this trifle (in the course of
whose narrative I intercalated, with pseudo-erudition, and occasional line
from the Fáfnismál) allowed me to forget the existence of the coin.
(Personal 132–3)
General Thesis and Approach
Borges’s choice of story for distracting him from the trance of the Zahir could not
have been more appropriate, both in its thematic relevance and, more central to
the focus of this paper, in providing a template for Borges’s sustained
engagement with Scandinavian literature throughout his career.
In “El Zahir” his character Borges is lost in two things, Teodelina Villar
and a single coin, and the only thing that can distract him, albeit for little less
15
than a month, is a strong reading and re-writing of the myth of Sigurd and Fafnir:
Fafnir becomes the noble hero, sacrificing himself to protect the gold destined to
bring doom and destruction, and Sigurd, and more pointedly, his sword Gram,
become the enemy. The act here of the fictive Borges mirrors that of the real-life.
Edwin Williamson has already, quite adroitly, discussed the symbol of the
sword and the dagger at length in his biography of Borges, Borges a Life.
According to Williamson, the sword represents for Borges civilization and
conformity, ancestry and history, and more to the heart of it, family and worldly
esteem: that for which Leonor, his mother, and Jorge, his father (albeit
differently), were ever in anxious pursuit. Contrariwise, the dagger, for
Williamson, was Borges’s symbol for the subversive, the counter-culture, and the
ahistorical. According to Williamson, Borges continually felt the pull and the
appeal of both; he was ever caught between the demands of familial propriety and
greatness and the beauty of abandon, the relief of recklessness.
Much in line with Williamson’s contentions, I believe there was in fact this
constant pull of extremes on Borges, that there is biographical and literary
evidence that there was this struggle and that it was symbolized by the sword and
the dagger. I depart from Williamson, however, in how this plays out with
Borges’s relationship with Scandinavia and with Iceland in particular. The
Scandinavian sword, perhaps we could call it Gramr, is able to bestride this
division: it at once represents honor and approbation on one side and
impetuosity and unprepossessing candor on the other. For it there was the valor
and courage of the battlefield, used to defend the honor of children and spouse
(think Sigmund and Hjordis), and likewise the dagger-like chicanery used for
16
quick, behind-the-scenes plotting (think Sigmund and Signy or Sigurd and
Brynhild or Guttorm, Gudrun, Sigurd, and Brynhild). Put differently, but with the
same meaning, Borges found a literary home in Scandinavian literature. There,
ancestral demands and momentary opportunism ran conterminously. As in “El
Zahir” it provided an oasis from those two competing obsessions. And also as in
“El Zahir” it often found its way into Borges’s own output as strong readings of
Nordic texts. Much in line with Harold Bloom’s sense of the “strong” reading that
appropriates the precursor text in subversive and creative ways, ways that
produce wholly original works.
In the following pages and chapters, I will follow this Nordic thread as it
winds its way through the various phases of Borges’s oeuvre. In chapter two, I
will provide a detailed survey and analysis of exemplary minor texts that
highlight Borges’s protracted engagement with Nordic sources and highlight his
use of those texts to satisfy the impulse of achieving both family esteem and the
satisfaction of dissention. In chapters three and four, I will do close readings of
two of Borges’s short stories from his later collection El Libro de Arena: “Undr”
and “Ulrica.” In these two stories, particularly “Ulrica,” the strong reading of two
central texts will be made most clear. In the final chapter, I will conclude with
summary and suggestions for future scholarship.
In short, besides discovering and analyzing the intertextual connections
between Borges’s texts and Old Norse works, this study will be modeled on
Daniel Balderston’s research in Out of Context: Historical Reference and the
Representation of Reality in Borges. Of this approach, he writes:
What I propose to do here is to show how an imaginative reading of
17
Borges’s texts that is attentive to historical and political context can
discover implications in those texts that considerably complicate the
picture we have had up to now of the “postulation of reality” in Borges…. I
would argue that the interest of the stories is considerably heightened by
attention to the historical and political elements. (5)
In addition to the more global historical and political issues Balderston
emphasizes, the focus here also includes significant details from Borges’s own
history to help clarify the import of the references to Old Icelandic texts. Part of
the justification for this is the same passage of Borges to which Balderston
appeals for his analysis:
Negar la sucesión temporal, negar el yo, negar el universo astronómico,
son desesperaciones aparentes y consuelos secretos. Nuestro destino (a
diferencia del infierno de Swedenborg y del infierno de las mitología y del
infierno de la mitología tibetana) no es espantoso por irreal; es espantoso
porque es irreversible y de hierro. El tiempo es la sustancia de que estoy
hecho. El tiempo es un río que me arrebata, pero yo soy el río; es un tigre
que me destroza, pero yo soy el tigre; es un fuego que me consume, pero yo
soy el fuego. El mundo, desgraciadamente, es real; yo, desgraciadamente,
so Borges (“Nueva refutación del tiempo”)
To deny temporal succession, to deny the self, to deny the astronomical
universe, are apparent acts of desperations and secret consolations. Our
destiny (unlike the hell of Swedenborg or the hell of Tibetan mythology) is
not frightening because it is unreal: it is frightening because it is
irreversible and ironclad. Time is the substance of which I am made. Time
18
is a river that sweeps me away, but I am the river; it is a tiger that tears me
apart, but I am the tiger; it is a fire that consumes me, but I am the fire.
The world, unfortunately, is real; I, unfortunately, am Borges. (Balderston
4)
In the end, my point is not to overstate the case and suggest that once the Nordic
sources are discovered, the answer to the riddle that is Borges and his writings
will come into focus and be made obvious, but rather to show how for Borges
Scandinavian literature was often the source material that thematically, in both
biographical and literary terms, assuaged his creative aspirations, to show that
from the seedbed of the sagas, the Eddic and skaldic poems, Borges crafted texts
that fulfilled, symbolically, his ancestral and personal dreams.
19
Chapter 2
¿Qué secretos caminos me condujeron al amor de los escandinavo? Tal vez
los de sangre, ya que mi gente, por lado paterno, venía de Yorkshire, que
fue predio de vikings. (Esta remota explicación no me satisface; nadie
busca lo que ya tiene.) Tal vez un ejemplar de la Völsunga Saga que mi
padre me dio hará medio siglo, traducida por Morris y por Magnússon a
un arcaico dialecto del inglés, casi puramente sajón. (Borges, “Seis” 110)
What secret roads led me to the love of all things Scandinavian? Maybe the ties of
blood, since my people on my father’s side came from Northumberland, which
once was Viking country. (This rather farfetched explanation is hardly sufficient;
nobody yearns for what is already his.) Maybe a copy of the Völsunga Saga my
father gave me about half a century ago, translated by Williams Morris and Erikr
Magnússon into a kind of archaic, almost purely Saxon English. (Sigrún 381)
Survey
General Comments and Outline
As the epigraph suggests, a historical survey of Borges’s engagement with
Scandinavian texts would prove difficult. Starting perhaps before he was thirteen
or fourteen, Borges was reading broadly and regularly from the major
Scandinavian, and more generally Germanic, texts, and to attempt to track down
exactly which ones, for lack of evidence to substantiate any claim, would prove
fruitless. There are of course two notable exceptions to that general statement,
where Borges himself describes his early involvement: The Völsunga Saga and
The Prose Edda. The first will be discussed at greater length in the next chapter,
20
and the latter to be discussed in the last part of this chapter. Instead then of
surveying the more covert connections to Scandinavian texts that would be
inherent in that type of sleuthing and source commentary, the focus here will be
on those texts where the links to Nordic source material are made explicit,
explicit insofar as they are signaled in the very titles or in the stated subject. The
purpose, as emphasized in the introduction, is not to ferret out allusions,
although that will play a role in subsequent chapters, but to show how Borges, as
the protagonist Borges did in “El Zahir,” twists the Nordic texts in such a way that
satisfies biographical and literary interests. The general assertions for this
analysis are: 1. the Nordic texts prove to be unusually supple and malleable for
these type of strong readings, and 2. given that flexibility they still maintain their
identity as Nordic texts under their Borgesian façade.
The survey, then, will unfold into three major sections: first, literary
criticism; second, poetry and prose fiction; and third, translation.
Literary Criticism
Las “Kenningar”
In August of 1932 Borges published, in one of Argentina’s major literary
journals, Sur (incidentally ran and founded by close friends of Borges), a rather
lengthy article on the Icelandic kenning, a metaphorical pairing of two dissimilar
nouns (e.g., the “whale’s road” for the sea). The article was later reedited and
published in Borges’s collection of essays Historia de la eternidad. Of the
collection in general Williamson states:
21
What readership could Borges have had in mind for this miscellany of
outlandish texts? Bereft of a key to their autobiographical context, no one
could have grasped the vivid significance these pieces actually had for their
author. Borges had withdrawn so far into his private world that he had
effectively severed all communication with his readers. A History of
Eternity was to mark the nadir of his fortunes as a writer. (216)
More on the autobiographical details in a moment. The collection, in the end,
only sold thirty-seven copies. That disappointing response did not discourage
Borges, however, especially as it concerns the piece on kennings—he made minor
adjustments to and republished his chapter from Historia in 1951 in Antiguas
Literaturas Germanicas in 1965 in Literaturas Germanicas Medievales and in
English for The New Yorker in January of 1976.
The general structure of the essay is the following: the opening three pages
reflecting on the literary effect of these verbal puzzles, the next five pages offering
a detailed catalogue of some of the various kennings he had encountered, the
following three pages positioning the kennings in a literary history of both
Scandinavian focus and more broadly that of Western literature in general, and
ending with further general observations and two postscripts, one undated and
the other from 1962.
It is there, in the two postscripts, that the most revealing, at least as it
concerns this essay, comments are to be had. The end of the first postscript reads,
“El ultraísta muerto cuyo fantasma sigue siempre habitándome goza con estos
juegos. Los dedico a una clara compañera: a Norah Lange, cuya sangre los
reconocerá por ventura” (OC 1:715) [the dead ultraísta, whose ghost haunts me
22
continually, enjoys these games. I dedicate them to a Nordic friend: to Norah
Lange, in whose heritage it might find resonance]. And in the second postscript
he lists some of the most helpful books he has read to inform his understanding
of the kennings. Two of the most prominent are The Prose Edda by Snorri
Sturluson and translated by Arthur Gilchrist Brodeur and Völsunga Saga
translated by Eiríkr Magnússon and William Morris.
Ultraísmo was a poetic movement “characterized by a tendency to use free
verse, complicated metrical innovations, and daring imagery and symbolism
instead of traditional form and content” (“Ultraism”). While Borges was with his
family in Europe during the First World War and while they were consulting
doctors about Jorge Sr.’s eyesight, Jorge Luis became involved with many of the
Spanish literati, namely Guillermo de Torre (who eventually became his brotherin-law) and Rafael Cansinos-Asséns. Through these associations, through their
frequent meetings and debates, Borges was introduced to and helped formulate
the tenets of the Utraísmo movement, and after returning from Spain, Borges was
instrumental in promoting the movement in Argentina. Among those that
became committed to the Ultraíst aesthetic were the bewitching Lange sisters,
and principal among them was the youngest, Norah Lange.
Norah Lange was seven years Borges’s junior, a fact that didn’t prevent
him from being attracted to her in a way that perhaps rivaled any other
relationship he had. In describing her appearance, Williamson says, “her red hair
spoke of passion, but her pale, Scandinavian looks called to mind the purity of an
angel, and it was this tantalizing blend of innocence and fire that she captured in
dream poems charged with erotic anticipation.” (126) She was for Borges the
23
culmination of feminine beauty and desire. Each week her family’s house acted as
the center for the major Argentine literary salons, and almost every weekend the
Lange sisters were the hosts of the parties and dances frequented by Argentina’s
literary elite. Borges attended them all. To say that he aggressively pursued
Norah would be misleading, Borges was never aggressive, but he did, in his subtle
awkwardness, do everything he could to make his intentions clear.
In addition to these romantic gestures, and with the support of the Langes,
Francisco Fernández, and Leoppoldo Marechal, among others, Borges was able to
spearhead (or, at a minimum, act as a major intellectual proponent) the founding
of no fewer than three magazines dedicated to the Ultraísta cause: Prisma, Proa,
and Martin Fierro.
It wasn’t until some years later, when Norah began to reciprocate Borges’s
signs of affection, that Borges famously gave his 1927 denunciation of Ultraísmo
in his credo “Profesiòn de Fe Literaria” [“A Profession of Literary Faith”]. In this
profession his “postulado: toda literature es autobiográfica, finalmente. Todo es
poético en cuanto nos confiesa un destino, en cuanto nos da una vislumbre de él”
(128) [“postulate is that all literature, in the end, is autobiographical. Everything
is poetic that confesses, that gives us a glimpse of a destiny.” (Selected NonFiction 23)] He goes on to describe the technical elements of a poem written in
Uruguay by Fernán Silva Valdés, “Son una metáfora bien metida en la realidad y
hecha momento de un destino que cree en ella de veras y que se alegra con su
milagro y hasta quiere compartirlo con otros” (129) [“They are a metaphor firmly
enmeshed in reality, shaped into the moment of a destiny that truly believes in it,
that delights in its miracle and even wishes to share it with others.” (Selected
24
Non-Fiction 24)]. And lastly he says that when “bien examinados, los versos que
nos gustan a pesar nuestro, bosquejan siempre un alma, una idiosincrasia, un
destino. Más aun: hay cosas que por solo implicar destinos, ya son poéticas”
[“studied carefully, the verses we like despite ourselves always depict a soul, an
idiosyncracy, a destiny. What’s more, there are things that are poetic by merely
implying a destiny” (Selected Non-Fiction 25)]. In short, Borges’s “Profesión de
Fe Literaria” and thus his denunciation of Ultraístic decadence, is one of
tremendous optimism—there can be communion between the I of the author and
that of the reader. Where Ultraísmo specialized in obscurity and, in a way,
authorial indifference, Borges’s new vision, new credo, was one of dialogue and
correspondence.
If literature is in the end autobiographical, so, at least in this case, is
literary criticism. Borges, perhaps for the first time in his life, was exhibiting
himself emotionally, extending himself into the sphere of another, and receiving
a positive response. Gone were the days of solipsism and solitude, insecurity and
distance, and here were those of genuine connection, such that Norah and Borges
would go on to spend almost the entirety of Borges’s twenty-seventh year
together. There’s little mystery then behind the pronouncement of his faith in
literature’s ability to create just such connections.
For Borges, however, joy was rarely long-lived, and such was the case for
his tryst with Norah. While at a party, Borges introduced Norah to Oliverio
Girondo, one of the members of the Argentine Avant-Garde. Girondo was eight
years Borges’s senior and in many ways could not have been more different than
Jorge Luis. He was confident, smooth, and seemingly had greater professional
25
promise. Of this first meeting with Girondo, Norah would later say, “[Oliverio]
era vital, apasionado. Y me enamoré deél desde ese día.” (de Nobile 14) [“Oliverio
was vital, passionate. I was in love with him from that day on.” (Williamson 149)]
Borges was sunk, he was neither vital nor passionate, and that was what Norah
needed. He was completely dejected. He had invested himself in his relationship
with Norah, and with her rejection, it felt as if all of his former self was lost. He
attempted to win her back but without success: ultimately she was lost to him,
never to return.
For Borges’s output, the years that followed were marked as being
particularly abstruse and insular. The first essay that signals this shift is
“Indagación de la Palabra” (“An investigation of the word”). The essay starts with
a tedious and painstaking look at the first sentence of Don Quixote, where he
parses each word’s syntactic role. After working through the first sentence, and
probing the importance of each word, he offers a summary conclusion, “La
definición que daré de la palabra es—como las otras—verbal, es decir también de
palabras, es sotodecir pabrera.” (20) [“The definition I shall give of the word
(therefore) is—like others—verbal, that is to say, also made of words, that is to
say, wordy…. a word’s determining factor is its function as representative unit
and how variable and contingent that function is.” (Selected Non-Fiction 37)]
This comes as a pronounced movement away from that sense of connection he
had proclaimed in his earlier essay, in his credo. His affection, his Eros, here
becomes symbolically stymied by the word, by Logos. In the end he says, for
nosotros, los verbales, los que ‘en este bajo, relativo suelo’ escribimos, los
que sotopensamos que ascender a letras de molde es la máxima realidad
26
de las experiencias? Que la resignación—virtud a que debemos
resignarnos—sea con nosotros. Ella será nuestro destino: hacernos a la
sintaxis, a su concatenación traicionera, a la imprecisión, a los talveces, a
los demasiados énfasis, a los peros, al hemisferio de mentira y de sombra
en nuestro decir. (24)
those of us … who are verbal, who ‘on this low, relative ground’ write, (for)
those of us who lowly imagine that ascending into print is the maximum
reality of experiences … May resignation—the virtue to which we must
resign ourselves—be with us. It will be our destiny to mold ourselves to
syntax, to its treacherous chain of events, to the imprecision, the maybes,
the too many emphases, the buts, the hemisphere of lies and of darkness
in our speech. (Selected Non-Fiction 39)
It is here, in biographical details of Borges’s life, as Williamson’s above quotation
suggests, that one must take as the entry point for understanding Historia de la
Eternidad in general and “Las Kenningar” in particular, for Borges is at a low, the
nadir of cynicism, skepticism, and mistrust, and the Nordic kenning seems a
likely vessel to convey that.
He starts the essay on kennings with a seemingly innocuous comment of
literary history, but when read next to the essays conclusion it becomes uniquely
Borgesian in style and content. The opening comment reads:
Una de las más frías aberraciones que las historias registran, son las
menciones enigmáticas o kenningar de la poesía Islandia…. Es común
atribuirlas a decadencia; pero ese depresivo dictamen, válido o no,
corresponde a la solución del problema, no a su planteo. Bástenos
27
reconocer por ahora que fueron el primer deliberado goce verbal de una
literatura instintiva. (Obras Completas I 704)
(One of the coldest aberrations in the annals of history, are those
enigmatic constructions or kenningar of Icelandic poetry…. It is
commonplace for them to be ascribed to decadence; but this depressing
opinion, valid or not, is more to the solution of the problem than its origin.
For now, suffice it to say that they were the first deliberate verbal
pleasures of instinctive literature.)
The ending of the essay reads
Las kenningar nos dictan ese asombro, nos extrañan del mundo. Pueden
motivar esa lúcida perplejidad que es el único honor de la metafísica, su
remuneración y su fuente. (715)
(The kennings give us this wonder, they make the world seem strange.
They can motivate this lucid perplexity that is the solemn honor of
metaphysics, its payment and its source.)
The essay, then, starts by suggesting that the assertion that the kenning is sheer
decadence may in fact be true, but that it doesn’t get to the heart of them, the
vital force behind their wordplay. For Borges they represent a more earthy and
modest conceit, at least initially. They started as yet another example of man’s
natural instinct to metaphorize, to link unlike elements. In contrast to what
generally emerged from that impulse, however, the Kennings were uniquely,
cerebrally sterile: to use Borges’s formulation, their “solution” or ending was a
decadent one. To this, Borges’s 1976 essay that appeared in The New Yorker adds
clarity:
28
The meaning [of kennings] is irrelevant, the suggestion of little value. They
neither stir the imagination nor call up images or emotions; they are not
points of departure but ends in themselves. Their pleasure—their
sufficient pleasure—lies in their variety, in the unexpected linking together
of the words…. Aristotle wrote that metaphor springs from the perception
of an affinity between dissimilar things…. Kennings, on the other hand,
are, or seem to be, the result of a mental process that looks for an
accidental likeness. They answer to no particular feeling. They are the
outcome of a deliberate combining process, not of a sudden discovery of
hidden affinities. Mere logic may justify them, not human sentiment. (36)
For Borges the kenning offers a false metaphysics; it makes gestures towards
transcendence, but, as if facing a mirror, it only reflects the infinite regression of
human consciousness. Where his sense was once optimistic and hopeful that
expression could reach outwards and perhaps engage the other dialogically, now
he’s resigned to the tyranny of syntax and the isolation of the “hemisferio de
mentira” (Indagación 24) [“hemisphere of lies” (Selected Non-Fiction 39)]
So to answer Williamson’s question, “What readership could Borges have
had in mind for this miscellany of outlandish texts [Historia de la Eternidad]?”
(216) The answer quite simply is none. And with only 37 copies being purchased,
that’s almost precisely what he got. Borges had lost his first major love, and with
that his hope in inter-personal communion. As the Borges in “El Zahir” lost his
one-of-a-kind Teodelina and found recourse in Nordic literature, so did the
thirty-two year old Borges find that the rigor and dispassion of the North
symbolized his destination, or at least his hope.
29
Returning to those concluding lines of the first postscript, his recollection
of his days as Ultraíst poet and his dedication to Norah Lange, it seems clear that
as much as it was literary criticism, Borges’s exposition on kennings was
something deeply personal. His reading of the kenning was not an attempt to
project himself anachronistically into the past, into the point of their first
utterance, or inscription, but to pull them forward and fit them into modern
sensibilities. It’s dubious at best to say that for Egill, Sigurd, Njall, or the like, a
kenning and the process by which it was engendered could profoundly disturb
their metaphysical underpinnings, and to them “extrañan del mundo” [make the
world seem strange]. But to Borges they could, for his strong reading they
symbolized the solipsism that preceded the affection of Norah Lange (i.e.
Ultraísmo) and that which followed.
Antiguas Literaturas Germanicas and Literaturas Germanicas
Medievales
Fondo de Cultura Económica published Antiguas Literaturas Gemanicas (ALG)
in 1951, and almost fifteen years later Literaturas Germanicas Medievales
(LGM) 1 was published by Falbo Librero Editor. In these two works, Borges is
attempting to introduce Latin America to a particular hobby of his: Medieval
Germanic texts. His conceptualization of this body of literature, however, does
not come as a straightforward literary history. Indeed it takes on a certain flavor
that would, for a reader of Borges, not come as wholly foreign.
Here I follow Teodosio Fernández’s lead in what have become the standardized
abbreviations of these two texts.
1
30
Additionally, on the matter of revision, in almost every respect Literaturas
Germanicas and Antiguas Literaturas are identical. That said, there are still
differences, and knowing those differences is important to understanding
Borges’s approach to and reading of the Old Norse texts. Thus, in this section of
the survey, a general overview of the content and character of the work will be
given, the two books will be juxtaposed to highlight the differences between
them, each will be contextualized to show their place within Borges’s biographical
context, and finally everything will be brought together to show how, much like
the Borges of “El Zahir,” these books reflect more a strong reading by Borges that
fits that ever present sense of the Borgesian, than they do as genuine works of
literary historiography.
Overview
In terms of a general overview for the character of the work, perhaps the passage
that best makes explicit what seems to lurk in the background throughout the
discussion of all three areas of Old Germanic texts (i.e. Old English, Old
Germanic, and Old Norse), is Borges’s brief assessment of Nordic texts
specifically:
Más extraño y más parecido a los sueños es el destino escandinavo. Para la
historia universal, las guerras y los libros escandinavos son como si no
hubieran sido; todo queda incomunicado y sin rastro, como si
acontecieran en un sueño o en esas bolas de cristal que miran los videntes.
En el siglo XII, los islandeses descubren la novela, el arte de Cervantes y de
31
Flaubert, y ese descubrimiento es tan secreto y tan estéril para el resto del
mundo, como su descubrimiento de América. (LGM 144)
(More unusual than and bearing greater resemblance to dreams is the
Scandinavian destiny. For the universal history, the Scandinavian wars
and books are as if they never were; all in isolation and without a trace, as
if it all happened in a dream or in those crystal balls consulted by
fortunetellers. In the twelfth century, the Icelanders discovered the novel,
the art of Cervantes and Flaubert, a discovery, not unlike their discovery of
America, that remains so well concealed and barren from the rest of the
world.)
For Borges, here, and throughout the work, the appeal is one of shared
sympathies. Borges concluded that the Old Germanic work focused on “La
tristeza, la lealdad y el coraje” (LGM 104) [sadness, loyalty, and courage]; he saw
the Old English work privileging “singularidades individuales” (LGM 105)
[individual peculiarities]; and of the Scandinavian texts, he felt their literary
claims were quite singular: “Lo que al principio se escribió en Inglaterra o en
Alemania vale, porque en buena parte, prefigura, o porque imaginamos que
prefigura, lo que se escribiría después…. En cambio, la antigua literatura nórdica
vale por cuenta propia” (LGM 111) [That which was originally written in England
or Germany is justified because in part it prefigures, or at least because we
imagine it does, that which would be written later…. The ancient Nordic
literature, however, is justified on its own account].
All of the literature Borges surveys, and at some points studies at greater
depth, are justified because they seem haunted by a voice that somehow feels
32
modern, a voice that reaches beyond its context and finds correspondence to the
present, a voice that seems almost Borgesian; a point that will be further
examined after considering the differences between the two works and after
everything is set to the context of Borges’s biography.
Comparison 2
Antiguas Literaturas Germanicas begins with the prologue stating that what we
have in hand is a “manual, así, no sólo es una introducción al estudio de las
antiguas literaturas germánicas; es, también, dentro de su forzosa brevedad, un
principio de antología” (7–8) [manual, that is not only an introduction to the
study of ancient Germanic literature, but also, within its necessary brevity, the
beginnings of an anthology]. The goals seem clear, if not modest: It is an
introduction, in Spanish, to significant literature in the major Germanic
languages. It doesn’t seem to be making any serious claims to clearing new
scholarly ground, but more, to follow Margrét Jónsdóttir’s suggestion, to act as a
tour guide to the Spanish speaking world for these foreign texts.
In the prologue to Literatura Germanicas Medievales the premise, in its
similar humility, seems to be very much the same, but with two important
additions: “Este libro quiere reunir la historia de los orígenes de tres literaturas,
surgidas de una raíz común, y que complejas vicisitudes históricas fueron
This type of comparison is first done in Margrét Jónsdóttir’s piece on Borges’s use
of medieval Icelandic texts. In fact, she is the only one, up to this point, who has done
any formal analysis of these two texts (see 138–50). Her main interest, however, is
emphasizing the oddities and inconsistencies in the works to the standard scholarly
interpretations. Beyond that, she also spends some time on the resonances of
Borges’s voice in these two works.
2
33
transformando y alejando (ellos)” (7) [This book desires to bring together the
history of the origin of three literatures, issuing from a common root, and also
(discuss) the complex vicissitudes that transformed and separated them], and
secondly, “este volume no solo es una historia, sino una suerte de antología” (8)
[this volume is not only a story, 3 but also a kind of anthology]. This second, later
volume appears to have a more ambitious aim: to not just provide an overview,
which is by definition perfunctory, but to make a scholarly contribution in the
connections it signals. Additionally, it is important to note that Borges intends to
weave a narrative, to create a story of these constituent parts. Indeed, it’s not
until this second work that a number of translations are made of it into various
languages; more attention will be given to the review of the Norwegian
translation in a moment.
From these loftier claims made in the prologue, the question becomes,
what changes were made in the work to justify them? The first most conspicuous
change is the order in which the material is presented. ALG and LGM begin with
a section on Ulfilas, the missionary to the Goths, which is set off from the rest of
the work, in a way as an introduction to the rest of the volume—in this brief
history of Ulfilas, he’s treated as an author, in Borges’s estimation, as the author
of the “monumento más antiguo de las lenguas germánicas” (LGM 13) [the oldest
monument of the Germanic languages]: the translation of the bible into Gothic.
After this section/introduction on Ulfilas, both ALG and LGM analyze what
Borges calls in ALG “Literatura de la Inglaterra Germánica” and in LGM
“Literatura de la Inglaterra Sajona.” After a reasonably long discussion of
3
In context, it seems that story would be the best translation of historia.
34
medieval English literature, Borges in ALG goes on to medieval Scandinavian
literature and ends on medieval Germanic literature, and in LGM from English to
medieval Germanic literature and ends on medieval Scandinavian. 4 The reason
for this shift seems clear. The first sentence of the Scandinavian section reads,
“De las literaturas germánicas medievales la más compleja y rica es
incomparablemente la escandinava” (LGM 111) [Of all the medieval Germanic
literature, the most rich and complex is without comparison the Scandinavian].
Thus shifting to the end the treatment of Scandinavian texts in the later work, as
a kind of climax, is quite natural.
As for the revisions within each section from one text to the next, the
changes made in the Scandinavian section seem representative of the changes
that are made in the other two sections, i.e. changes of accretion, deletion, and
ordering; and only examining those changes (i.e. the ones in the Scandinavian
section) is a convenient way of abbreviating what could be a very long, and
tedious analysis.
The section begins with general encomium for the body of Nordic works.
In LGM, after describing the fate of Scandinavian works, that it found its greatest
manifestation in Iceland, as it does in ALG, it adds that Iceland was “la salvación
y el último refugio de la antigua cultura pagana” (111) [the salvation and the
ultimate refuge of the ancient pagan culture]. Further down, in explicating Viking
It should be noted that in LGM, incidental to this change in order, curious errors
are introduced; errors that a casual proofread would have probably caught. For
instance, under his section on the Nibelungenlied Borges starts out by saying he had
already touched on the story of Andvari and his tragic loss of gold, which he would
have done in the older version, but in the revision doesn’t come to until the next
section.
4
35
epitaphs it adds an additional one, “Que Dios se apiade de las almas de Orm y de
Gunnlaug, pero sus cuerpos yacen en Londres” (113) 5 [That God takes pity on the
souls of Orm and of Gunnlaug, but their bodies lie in London]. In his study of
Njáls Saga he describes the last moments of Gunnar’s life where Gunnar asks his
wife to make a bowstring from her hair to be able to fend off his attackers, but she
refuses in order to revenge herself on Gunnar for slapping her earlier in the story.
Of this scene in ALG Borges states, “El narrador no nos había dicho que Hallgerd
guardase rencor a su marido; ahora lo sabemos bruscamente, como suelen
revelarse las cosas en la realidad” (71) [The narrator had not told us of the
bitterness Hallgerd had kept toward her husband; now we suddenly understand,
as is customarily the case in reality]. In LGM it reads, “El Texto nada nos había
dicho de ese rencor; ahora lo sabemos bruscamente, actual y terrible, con el
mismo asombro de Gunnar” (129) [The text had told us nothing of this bitterness;
now we suddenly understand, in its present horror, with the same surprise as
Gunnar]. While there are certainly more additions, these three are exemplary.
Biographical Details
During the years just preceding the publication of ALG, and certainly during the
intervening years its publication and that of LGM, many things of relevant import
took place in Borges’s life that would motivate him to even write a book of
Germanic literary history and then go on to revise it with, at times, nonessential
changes fourteen years later.
This addition is particularly significant in the following chapters discussion of
“Undr.”
5
36
The first important theme is his employment, which, incidentally, is also
integrally connected to the politics of his time. In a way it begins in July of 1946,
when Borges, as punishment for signing anti-Perón documents, documents that
advocated democratic freedom, was “promoted” from his menial position at the
Biblioteca de Miguel Cané (a small and obscure branch of the municipal library)
to be an inspector of poultry and rabbit meat for the Buenos Aires public
markets; an obvious slight by the Peronist regime. This open insult to one of
Argentina’s most respected authors became something of a rallying point for
those who had only up to that point been tacitly opposed to Perón. Friends found
Borges other employment as a teacher and lecturer on English literature at the
Asociación de Cultura Inglesa and at the Colegio Libre de Estudios Superiores.
His publications were also sources of a modest income, including the first
publication of his work into French in 1951 the same year of ALG’s publication;
this French translation was the first in which Borges appeared in any language
other than Spanish. He subsisted by these means until September of 1955 when
Perón was ousted by a military coup. Shortly after Perón’s departure, Borges was
appointed director of the National Library; a victory, no doubt, but one tinged
with an irony not unlike Beethoven’s going deaf at the height of his career: in
1954, after falling on the beech and damaging his ocular nerve beyond repair,
Borges effectively lost his sight. Nevertheless, Borges was very pleased with his
appointment, and, for the first time in a long while, it looked like he was no
longer going to be in dire financial straits. In addition to his appointment at the
library, in 1956 he was appointed the chair of English and American literature at
the University of Buenos Aires. While there, starting around 1958, he began to
37
study Old English in earnest. He invited numerous students to his apartment
each Saturday to do readings of canonical Old-English texts. There are several
reports where after such a meeting Borges and his students would take to the
streets and “declaim a passage they had succeeded in deciphering that morning.”
(Williamson 343)
These were wonderful days for Borges. In addition to his official
appointments, and in a large part due to the French translation of his work in
1951, his writing began developing a larger readership. In 1961, with no special
effort on the part of Borges, he was notified that he and Samuel Beckett had been
jointly awarded the International Publisher’s Prize, a prize patronized by six
major publishing houses in Britain, the U.S., Germany, Italy, Spain, and France.
Beyond the award money of five-thousand dollars, each publisher committed to
commission the translation and publication of Borges’s works in each of their
respective languages. In Borges’s estimation, this was the major turning point in
his literary success. In his own words, “As a consequence of that prize, my books
mushroomed overnight throughout the Western world.” (Williamson 254)
With the publication of his books in the major European languages, Borges
became a very sought after figure. He began book and speaking tours through
various countries in Europe and in the United States. In 1961 he was invited to
teach a special seminar at the University of Texas at Austin, and, in the coming
years he would tour and at times teach at many universities (including the
Charles Eliot Norton lectures at Harvard in 1967–1968) throughout the eastern
part of the United States. Borges would often go on to say how he, in a way, had
to find his voice during these first years of his success. He was never comfortable
38
lecturing in large groups, he had always felt more at home in the smaller more
intimate settings. But as one engagement led to another, Borges developed a
greater degree of confidence, and greater ability.
The second major theme that will help explain Borges’s motivations for
writing ALG and then revising it in LGM is best described as his relationship with
women. In the years between 1947 and 1965, Borges had no fewer than four
serious (at times to the point of engagement and marriage) relationships. The
principle three were, Estela Canto, Cecilia Ingenieros, and María Esther Vázquez.
The most complex of those three was, to be sure, Estela Canto. Their first
period together started in August of 1944 (see Williamson 275) when they were
introduced by Bioy Casares and Silvina Ocampo. In typical fashion, Borges threw
himself into the relationship. Estela reciprocated up to a point, but due to
Borges’s relationship with his mother, found it difficult to become completely
committed. Estela felt quite free-spirited and independent and did not think it
appropriate that Borges at forty-five years of age should still report his comings
and goings to his mother. After spending considerable time away from Georgie,
she eventually brought it to an unequivocal end in June of 1946. After that split,
Estela and Borges had two further reprisals of their affections, the first in 1949
and then again in 1955 when Estela returned to Buenos Aires to care for her
mother after having lived in Europe for several years. The second round was said
to be brought to an end, again because of Doña Leonor (Borges’s Mother), and
the third ended in 1955 because of a political disagreement.
The second relationship, with Cecilia Ingenieros, was perhaps the shortest
lived. After his first breakup with Estela, Borges became much taken with the
39
daughter of José Ingenieros, a prominent author of the previous generation.
Cecilia was a professional ballet dancer who owned her own ballet company. Of
the details of this relationship, very little information is available. In an interview
some time after the fact Borges described the way she broke things off in 1948:
She asked me to meet her at a tearoom…. I hadn’t spoken to her for some
time and thought, ‘How strange that she called me,’ and I was feeling very
happy, and then she said to me, ‘I want to tell you something you’re going
to hear anyway … I’ve become engaged and I’m going to be married.’ So I
congratulated her, and that was that.’ (qtd. in Williamson 302)
From his time with Cecilia, however, came a productive meeting: Borges was put
in contact with Cecilia’s older sister Delia, to whom credit of co-authorship is
given in ALG.
The final inamorata, María Esther Vázquez, came in 1963. Borges was now
sixty-four, widely respected in and outside of Argentina, and especially busy. He
had known María while she worked at the National Library in the late fifties, but,
because she was in a serious relationship (incidentally with someone that had
positioned himself as one of the earliest Borges scholars) at that time, he had not
thought of her in romantic terms. It just so happened, though, that Borges, who
was becoming more and more in demand, needed someone to accompany him on
one of his tours of Europe. This role was usually quite willingly filled by Doña
Leonor, but due to her age (88) and having been tired out by the previous year’s
travels, she was not up to it. María went with him to England, Germany,
Denmark (only to see the castle at Elsinore), and various other European
countries. On this trip, Borges’s interest in all things Scandinavian intensified,
40
and upon his return, with María’s help, Borges took up ALG and began the
process of revision. This was the first work of a fairly productive period of
collaboration.
After some time working with Borges as an assistant, attending various
social functions where Borges went to great pains to introduce her to his notable
friends and colleagues, and, in every sense, giving the impression that she and
Borges were a couple, she informed Borges, while he was at the Peruvian embassy
being invested with the Order of the Sun, that she would be getting married in
three weeks time to Horacio Armani.
The three of these relationships have a few things in common. The first,
and perhaps most painful element of them all, was that Borges was particularly
maladroit when it came to matters of the heart. In one particularly memorable
passage, Williamson summarizes Borges’s attempts at love:
Such friendships [with women collaborators] amplified a reputation
Borges had acquired since the early 1930s for a kind of adolescent naïveté
in affairs of the heart. There was always a woman whom Borges was said
to be wooing … Yet no one seemed to take such liaisons seriously, not
even, in most cases, the ladies in question, who were content to be
flattered by the attentions of one of the leading writers in the country.
Indeed, not a few of these ladies derived a certain amusement … [of]
Borges’s adolescent gushing over them. (300)
That almost all of Borges’s relationships ended with the women announcing
forthcoming marriages with other men is telling. His sense of awareness was
limited and understanding of each relationship’s status was short-sighted. Part of
41
this may be due to the second common characteristic of these relationships: they
all seemed quasi-professional. That is to say, all of his relationships played the
dual role of friendship and collaboration, and often, of both, the latter was
privileged. Borges seemed incapable of engaging the other without a literary
intermediary: for Estela it consisted of some of his most well-known stories that
were eventually compiled in El Aleph, including “El Zahir,” and numerous works
of literary criticism, for Cecilia it came in the form of various adaptations and
even a script for a ballet, and for María it took on the form of various revisions of
earlier works (particularly ALG into LGM) and renewed attempts at earlier
literary questions.
Another common denominator among these women was Leonor’s intense
disapproval of each. Indeed, in Williamson’s words,
Far from being promiscuous in his affections, Borges was, if anything, too
selective; he obeyed a single, involuntary criterion—he fell for women who
would be unacceptable to Mother, either because they came from an
inferior social class or because they did not meet the high standards of
respectability required by Doña Leonor. Rebellion against Mother was the
prerequisite of love.… The thrill of rebellion was added the thrill of moral
danger, and both converged in the figure of the compadrito, the
delinquent knife fighter, who became the embodiment of virile passion in
his writing. (301)
For Borges, Mother and her standards were represented by the hereditary sword
of honor, the sword that comes between him and the beloved, the sword of family
history and lore. Estela was a mutt, without patrician stock of any kind, and had a
42
vague sense of morals and rectitude. Cilicia was too independent and loose. And
María was almost forty years Borges’s junior. All of these women were contrary to
what the ever image-conscious Leonor had in mind for her Georgie.
The last point of correspondence between these three women was that,
without exception, they all inspired or collaborated with Borges on projects that
were connected to Old Norse. María, of course, is credited with helping Borges on
LGM. She was more than his amanuenses; from their trip to various parts of
Scandinavia together, she helped reengage Borges with Old Norse texts. Cecilia
brought Borges into contact with her sister Delia with whom he wrote ALG. And
Estela Canto was, in some ways, his Teodelina Villar. After his first break with
Estela, Borges, in fairly short order, wrote “El Zahir.” The location where the
fictional Borges finds the coin that enraptures (except, of course, for the point in
the story where he rewrites the story of Fafnir and Sigurd) his every waking
moment was the corner of Chile and Tacuarí: the very corner on which Estela
lived. Borges’s Zahir was Estela, and the only reprieve from that monomania was
Scandinavian myth.
Connections and Summary
In 1952, a year after the publication of ALG, Borges published the book of essays
Otras Inquisiciones (Other Inquiries or Other Inquisitions). Buried in the middle
of the collection is a seemingly innocuous piece entitled “Kafka y Sus Precusores”
(“Kafka and His Precursors”); in its printed, octavo-sized page, it comes in at
little more than two and a half pages.
43
The essay begins with a basic query: Who are the precursors to Kafka? Is
there a development in literary history where he comes as the natural next step in
the order of things? Is there a point where the questions that were being asked
could only be answered by Kafka or someone like him? The answer for Borges is
as always quite original: Kafka, he says, is in a way his own precursor. He says
that after reading material from diverse literatures and periods he found that he
was recognizing Kafka’s voice throughout. He gives four examples: Zeno, the preSocratic philosopher; Han Yu, a prose writer of ninth-century China;
Kierkegaard, a nineteenth-century Danish theologian and philosopher; and
Robert Browning, a nineteenth-century English poet and playwright. He ends the
short essay by saying,
If I am not mistaken, the heterogeneous pieces I have listed resemble
Kafka; if I am not mistaken, not all of them resemble each other. This last
fact is what is most significant. Kafka's idiosyncrasy is present in each of
these writings, to a greater or lesser degree, but if Kafka had not written,
we would not perceive it; that is to say, it would not exist…. The word
“precursor” is indispensable to the vocabulary of criticism, but one must
try to purify it from any connotation of polemic or rivalry. The fact is that
each writer creates his precursors. His work modifies our conception of
the past, as it will modify the future. In this correlation, the identity or
plurality of men doesn’t matter. (365)
In other words, the impact that Kafka made on literature was such that it not only
re-charted the course of literature for the future, but also affected the literature of
the past: Zeno took on the power of distortion that was Kafka; the Unicorns of
44
Han Yu disorient like Kafka; Kierkegaard destabilizes and locates the individual
at the center as did Kafka; and like Kafka, Browning problematizes the position of
man before God. To put it differently, in terms of adaptation, Kafka, the sense of
the Kafkaesque, was adapted by the past.
Here Borges’s words can just as easily be applied to what takes place in
ALG and LGM. His conceptualization of the past, of the literature of the past, is
uniquely Borgesian. The Old-Germanic, the Old-English, and the Old-Norse texts
are interesting and worth discussion because on the one hand they are firmly
situated in a time and a place (you have the sense they are the work of a
historian) and on the other hand their dream-like quality disorients, two qualities
that are often attributed to Borges’s literature.
This latter quality, however, the sense of the dream-like, the sense of the
solipsistic was one to which, at different points in his career, Borges’s
commitment wavered. He would often lament his inability to write a
straightforward narrative, i.e. he often felt insecure by the inwardness and
privileging of the individual conscience in his stories.
This is perhaps one of the best explanations for what at first gave rise to
ALG and then what engendered the revisions in LGM. When Borges wrote ALG
with Delia Ingenieros in 1951 he was at an especially low point. In addition to the
embarrassment that came by way of his employment, and at times lack thereof,
he had endured intense personal rejections from both Estela Canto (twice) and
Cecilia Ingenieros. Indeed, it seemed very much like he was getting no response
from others, and that all he had was inwardness and inconsistencies. At this
point, the Germanic texts seemed like ideal material for giving voice to these
45
anxieties: they seemed situated in external reality, but in truth they existed “todo
queda incomunicado y sin rastro, como si acontecieran en un sueño” (LGM 144)
[in isolation and without a trace, as if it all happened in a dream]. For this, his
earlier anthology and history of Germanic texts (ALG) emphasizes first the
modesty of his project and second the dream-like, contingent quality of the texts
themselves.
Over the fourteen years between ALG and LGM, however, Borges’s fortune
changed almost completely. His promotion to the director of the National
Library, his appointment to the chair of English literature at the University of
Buenos Aires, his reception of the International Publishers’ Prize and subsequent
translations and publications of his work abroad, and his relationship with María
Vazquez all marked a type of collective response: his voice had gone out, and now
it was finally getting a reply. Of all of the relationships that he had had from
Estela to María, it was only with María that he announced an engagement (see
Bioy 1001–27). Consequently, when he updates the text with María his focus is on
the situatedness and non-contingent nature of the Medieval Germanic texts: he
adds examples that fix them in a given point and adjusts his interpretations such
that his analysis is not simultaneously commentary on the text and on general
ontological issues but of just the text (see above examples in comparison section
on runic inscriptions and analysis of Njal’s Saga). Even though the general
content doesn’t change, he becomes more strident and confident in its claims to
scholarship, claims that were not considered justified by specialists 6. Indeed, they
In the review of the Norwegian translation Mattias Tveitane says, “Som en
orientering for et spansk publikum om en fremmed og fjern litteratur har den
6
46
may not have been justified as revelatory for specialists on Scandinavia, but are
certainly so for specialists on Borges.
In summary, in these two books Borges was picking the precursors that
from one book to the next align with different aspects of Borges’s life and output.
The first work, ALG, highlights Borges sense of isolation and inwardness; one of
the major trademarks for Borges’s work. The second work, LGM, emphasizes the
certainty of time and place: at a time when Borges wanted that aspect of the
Medieval Germanic texts to be his precursors.
Poetry and Prose
“Ragnarök”
In the March-April issue of the 1959 volume of Sur Borges published a very
unusual work of poetic prose entitled “Ragnarök.” The work starts out with this
brief exposition on the nature of dreams, “En los sueños (escribe Coleridge) las
imágenes figuran las impresiones que pensamos que causan” (Selected Poems
90) [“In Dreams (Coleridge writes), images take the shape of the effects we
believe they cause” (Selected Poems 91)]. By that, he goes on to explain, he means
that the nightmare images found in dreams are not the cause of our terror, but
the result of real-life horror. From there he describes one of his recent
nightmares.
The scene of the nightmare was a faculty meeting at the University of
Buenos Aires. In the middle of the meeting the faculty was assailed by cries from
muligens sin verdi … dermod tåler den knapt å presenters på norsk” (qtd. in Margrét
Jónsdóttir 141) [For the Spanish public, it could be useful as an introduction to a
little-known, foreign literature … but its publication is not justified for a Norwegian
audience].
47
people of one of the poorer barrios of the city who were heralding the arrival of
the gods to the college. Of those many gods that entered the hall of the college of
humanities a few broke loose from the throng and presented themselves in the
front. The faculty and those who had arrived with the gods cheered and wept as
those took their places on the stage, for, after centuries’ absence, they had finally
returned. They marched around on the stage soaking in the homage the people
paid with a sense of haughty disdain, and at last, at a point of sheer exultation
and triumph, one of the gods spoke, but instead of speaking, sounded
“increíblemente agrio, con algo de gárgara y de silbido” (90) [“(with) incredibly
harsh clacking, complete with gargles and whistles” (91)]. The gods, having lived
like animals in exile from humanity, had lost their speech. The years of abuse
from Christianity and Islam had been merciless and, “Frentes muy bajas,
dentaduras amarillas, bigotes ralos de mulato o de chino y belfos bestiales
publicaban la degeneración de la estirpe olímpica” (90) [“The decadence of the
Olympic bloodline was evident in their beetling brows, yellowed teeth, patchy
half-breed or Chinese whiskers, and bestial protruding lips” (91)]. Those in
attendance saw the daggers hid in the tattered suits of the gods and sensed that
here they were playing their last card. They also saw that they “nos dejábamos
ganar por el miedo o la lástima, acabarían de destruirnos” (90) [“would destroy
us if we allowed ourselves to be swayed by fear [or] pity” (91)]. The faculty
removed their revolvers, and quickly and cheerfully dispatched the gods.
Williamson summarizes his analysis of this very unusual prose poem thus:
In “Ragnarök,” Borges was expressing his dismay at the Revolución
Libertadora’s failure to bring about “democratic regeneration”: He had to
48
accept that Perón had destroyed everything he had ever believed in or
hoped for. And given that the people persisted in supporting Perón, they
were now perceived as a threat; he had to destroy them before they
destroyed the values he held dear…. Estela Canto had been proved right—
the only alternative to making a deal with Perón was to accept military
violence. Nevertheless, There is something perverse in [that] image of
Borges ‘happily’ firing on a horde of savages pouring out of strange, dark,
forbidden places in the lower depths of El Bajo. If there was any joy in the
massacre, it was a kind of mad, self-punishing glee, for in writing
“Ragnarök,” Borges, as Estela had predicted, was siding with Mother—he
was grabbing the sword of honor but using it, finally, to cut out his heart.
(340)
After the June sixteenth bombing on the Plaza de Mayo, and after several years of
hardship from failed leadership, Juan Perón was finally ousted from power. He
lived in exile—mainly in Spain and Venezuela—for eighteen years and during that
time he continued to manipulate the Argentine public stage in such a way that
any hope that the initial coup had at reforming Argentine life, was stymied.
Borges, a supporter of the coup and a zealous opponent of Perón, initially
celebrated the results of Perón’s exile: i.e. Democracy and greater transparency.
But as he saw those of the lower class continually give way to the Perón
propaganda machine, he lost faith in the first of those outcomes. The people of
the poorer barrio support the gods that had been exiled (Perón) and, when in full
view, it was clear that there was no categorical assurance that such gods would
49
never again appear except by totalitarian solidity, the type of political force that
Borges would eventually go on to support.
Accordingly, Williamson’s interpretation is not without merit; indeed, it
seems quite logical considering the circumstances. But in comments to Adolfo
Casares, it was an interpretation that Borges resisted. After acknowledging that it
is the role of the critic to ascribe meaning to a text, he provides the exception as it
concerns this particular story: “pueda ser lo que es: un sueño, y como sueño,
vagamente simbólico…. mi cuento es meramente un sueño, tal como lo soñé.”
(Casares 480) [it can be that which it is: a dream, and as a dream vaguely
symbolic…. my story is no more than a dream, such as I dreamed it]. A typical
contradiction of Borges.
The truth is, though, that as Borges intimates in the first paragraph of the
story, dreams and the horrors found therein are not without antecedents.
Consequently, it is not wholly inappropriate to seek meaning behind the
representation, and, on that front, perhaps the best place to start is with the title.
In that same conversation with Adolfo Casares, at least as reported by
Casares, Borges had this to say of the title:
Ragnarök significa crepúsculo de los dioses. Una vez acordado ese título,
me pareció que era casi necesario; ahora, si lo ponía en español, revelaba
el secreto; si lo ponía en francés, en inglés o en alemán, también lo
revelaba y resultaba además un poco caprichoso, y que la expresión no
estaba en el original, sino traducida, y no al español, sino a un tercer
idioma. Tal vez sea un poco absurdo ese título misterioso, pero sirve para
lo que quiero: decir crepúsculo de lo dioses y guardar el secreto. (480)
50
(Ragnarök means twilight of the gods. Once the title was determined, it
seemed to me almost necessary; for if I had put it in Spanish, the secret
would have been revealed; if I put it in French, in English, or in German, it
would likewise have been revealed and moreover it would have seemed
capricious that the expression wasn’t in the original, but rather in
translation, and that it wasn’t even in Spanish, but a third language.
Perhaps this mysterious title seems a little absurd, but for me it serves the
purpose: to say twilight of the gods and also keep the secret.)
This, taken with Borges’s earlier comments, suggests that at the very least he was
playing with the idea and process of interpretation. For this poem, the meaning
was not meant to be effortlessly deduced, and, to that end, an effective way to
obscure and enrich it was by way of Norse Mythology.
The concept of Ragnarök is rich and, to a certain degree, complex. It is
most fully and clearly articulated in Snorri Sturluson’s Prose Edda, specifically at
the end of the section entitled Gylfaginning. Gylfi, in disguise as Gangleri, asks
the three high kings, all of whom are Odin, the nature of Ragnarök. High, the
lowest of the three kings, responds first by describing the events that immediately
precede it: there will be three years of unimaginable war, brothers against
brothers and fathers against sons; following that, three years of uninterrupted
winter; after these six years of war and winter, the wolves will swallow the sun
and moon, Fenriswolf will break loose and bring great and fiery destruction, this
destruction will cause the sea to surge and thus loose the Midgard Serpent, which
will spray untold amounts of venom; with Fenriswolf and Midgard Serpent
causing havoc, the frost giants, led by Hrym on the boat made of the fingernails
51
of the dead, cross the bridge, Bifrost, to Asgard and break it from their immense
weight. While all of this happens, Heimdall, the sentry of Asgard, will blow his
horn to wake up the gods and alert them of the onset of Ragnarök.
Odin will immediately go to Mimir’s Well to seek counsel on how to
proceed, and evidently will be told by Mimir to lead the charge against the frost
giants, Fenriswolf, and the Midgard Serpent. Each god will be matched up against
his historic nemesis: Odin against Fenriswolf, Thor against the Midgard Serpant,
Heimdall against Loki (a very complicated character), and Frey against Surt
(another leader of the Frost Giants). Ultimately, the great battle will end with the
gods winning, but only by a small margin: Thor will kill the Midgard Serpent but
only after having ingested venom, which will cause his death, Heimdall and Loki
will cause each other’s demise (the details are not clear), and Odin is swallowed
by Fenriswolf who will then have his jaw ripped off by Vidar, Odin’s son.
After Ragnarök, of the great Norse pantheon, only six gods will survive the
fire and destruction: Odin’s Vidar and Vali, Thor’s Modi and Magni, and Baldr
and Hod—all will dwell in Idavoll, a place where Asgard previously stood.
Eventually the flooding will recede and leave the earth regenerated and beautiful,
and two humans (Lif and Leifthrasir) that had hidden in the woods while all of
the events of Ragnarök were taking place, will emerge like Adam and Eve as the
great progenitors of humanity.
In short, the Nordic Ragnarök came as the culmination of a race, a
culmination that had been foretold and anticipated. In it, the gods of Ragnarök
fought mightily, and ultimately, albeit significantly diminished and their role
altogether altered, came out as victors. These were gods of awe and majesty,
52
whose twilight was in the end necessary to usher in the dawn of the new era, the
age of man. Indeed, these events and players strike a stark contrast to the puny,
pitiable, and desperate gods portrayed in Borges’s “Ragnarök.” Borges’s strong
reading of the Nordic myth is almost a complete inversion of the original.
Returning, then, to Borges’s comments to Adolfo Casares on the title,
Borges evoked this sense of passing on, of the twilight of a species by entitling his
work Ragnarök, but he also evoked the Norse pantheon at their martial best. Had
Borges simply called it “Twilight of the Gods,” he would have lost the Nordic
connection, or as he phrased it, that which concealed “the secret.” He would have
lost the connection that reveals the horror behind the nightmare, the inspiration
for the vision. Williamson’s interpretation seems to be true: Borges was
disillusioned by the revolutionaries, and perhaps he did feel that a totalitarian
response would be an appropriate gesture for decades of Peronist abuse, but the
greater nuance, the secret comes in its Nordic allusion. In the Nordic Ragnarök,
the gods win and there winning ushers in an age of rebirth and beauty. Even
though they have the guns appear in the dream and they so quickly and cheerfully
dispatch the gods, Borges knew that this plight of Peronism was not going to be
so easily dismissed. Those that fire on the gods at the end of Borges’s story are
the educated elite of the college of humanities, those who had never been
disciples of Perón. The real force of Perón was found outside of such small circles,
and those were not going to be so easily dispatched.
To summarize, the horror that brought on Borges’s nightmare was not
simply that the god in exile, Perón, had worked his way back into public
influence, had reappeared on the stage, but that even by taking the move which
53
Borges found ethically, morally, and philosophically repugnant (i.e. turning
against democracy and supporting enlightened totalitarianism), the gods would
still prevail, Perón’s inarticulate clacking and gargles would ultimately regain
command and perpetuate the acrid rot of society instead of its regeneration.
These gods were a perversion of those portrayed in Snorri’s Ragnarök, but a
perversion, much like their model, that would persist. This reading, of course,
this secret is available only by recourse to the North. Borges’s intertextual
allusion and creative re-reading of the Nordic source, much like the character
Borges’s in “El Zahir,” imbues the text with greater significance, in this case,
imbues it with the sense of cynical despair.
“Islandia”
By 1977 Borges had been to Iceland twice, first in 1971 and again in 1976. These
two trips were for Borges more like pilgrimages, having interacted on a textual
level with Iceland since his childhood. As a result of his first visit, he started to
study Old Norse in earnest, and would have, in addition to his Old-English
readings on Saturday (which he had been doing since the ’50s), regular OldNorse readings with students, friends, and colleagues from the University. The
rigorous effort by Borges to learn Old Norse, and the effort he expended to
engage the Old-Norse texts free from mediation, resulted in a veritable flowering
of Nordic adaptations and allusions. Among those were the two poems “A
Islandia” and “Islandia.” 7
7
Each poem, along with translation, is found in the appendix.
54
In Williamson’s estimation the latter poem comes at a climax in Borges’s
life (see Williamson 422). Having been forever stymied in his relationships with
women, he was at a point when he was finally free of his mother’s oppressive
oversight—by this time he was seventy-eight and his mother had previously
passed away two years before—and was now able to be with a woman (María
Kodoma), and feel the joy that comes from such an amorous relationship;
Williamson’s assertion is that Iceland, thus, became the emblem of that victory.
Such an interpretation seems to be the case, but Williamson’s method of arriving
at this conclusion seems to come without his fully appreciating the literary
gestures that most strongly suggest it, and without culling the meaning from the
differences between the two poems.
Just after ending his brief and troubled marriage with Elsa Astete Millán
in 1970, Borges wrote an autobiographical essay to accompany his and Norman
Thomas di Giovanni’s translation of El Aleph published later that same year.
With this turbulent time in Borges’s life in mind, it is surprising how Borges
concludes the essay. It reads:
In a way, youthfulness seems closer to me today than when I was a young
man. I no longer regard happiness as unattainable; once, long ago, I did.
Now I know that it may occur at any moment but that it should never be
sought after…. What I’m out for now is peace, the enjoyment of thinking
and of friendship, and, though it may be too ambitious, a sense of loving
and of being loved. (260)
This uncharacteristic optimism seems to come from his association with and
courting of María Kodoma.
55
María first met Borges when she was twelve. Her father took her to a
lecture Borges gave, and afterwards she and Borges discussed her favorite book,
Alice in Wonderland. It was not until some time later, however, when she was
attending the university, that their relationship fully developed. María was taking
Borges’s class on the epic and feeling overwhelmed by the material sought his
advice. From that meeting forward, she was a regular member of Borges’s inner
circle of students and friends. Even as Borges was struggling with his marriage,
with the demands of his mother, the demands of his publishers, and the
expectations of his readership, Borges found solace in María’s quiet, confident,
and reassuring spirit. In addition to being quite attracted to her physically,
Borges was drawn in by her depth and her apparent indifference to his fame.
Once formally separated from Elsa, Borges began travelling with María,
and the first, of a long list of places they visited, was Iceland. There Borges
worked up enough courage to reveal the extent of his affections for María, and to
his great satisfaction, and perhaps surprise, she responded that the feelings were
mutual. Borges later went on to say that this experience in Iceland acted as “the
greatest revelation of [his] life” (Alifano 127). Borges and María were together
almost constantly after that, and this relationship with María would go on to be
his most enduring relationship with a woman.
While together, Borges and María traveled to the United States, various
parts of Europe, Asia, throughout South America, and multiple times to Iceland.
After their first trip there in 1971 they returned in 1976. In between those two
years many things occurred. In 1973, Juan Perón returned to power; in July of
1975, at ninety-nine years of age, Leonor Acevedo, his mother, passed away; and
56
in September of that same year Borges made his first offer of matrimony to
María. According to subsequent interviews, this proposal put María in a difficult
position. Having been the child of divorced parents and also out of great fear for
her independence, she early on made a commitment never to marry. For her, she
had declared her love to Borges and that was sufficient. These events form the
backdrop to these two poems.
Thematically, “A Islandia,” is, typical to Borges, Borgescentric. He
celebrates the beauty, wonder, and history of Iceland, but frames it with notes of
melancholic reflection. The focus is the Iceland of old: the Iceland of myth, the
Iceland of the Vikings, the Iceland of Old Norse; the focus is on the Borges of the
past and the aged Borges of the present: Borges as a child receiving a book from
his father, Borges as a withered, blind, old man crawling through the texts of his
childhood with slow, plodding reference to the dictionary. He ends, however,
positively as the penultimate line ends in an ellipsis to be followed by a single
concluding line that holds out hope for affection. Clearly everything mentioned
earlier in the poem was Borges’s bygone image of Iceland, and now it symbolizes
the glimmering prospect of, as he phrases it in the autobiographical essay, “a
sense of loving and being loved” (476).
His later poem, “Islandia,” takes up many of these earlier thematic
considerations: Iceland, where the Germanic myths were preserved; Iceland, of
the motionless afternoon sun; and Iceland of the sea. One of the major thematic
differences, however, is the complete absence of Borges. Where the first poem
reminisces with tenderness and melancholy and only offers a late glimmer of
hope, this subsequent poem is pure celebration. The intimated desire for an
57
enduring love in the earlier poem provided the one moment of authentic
expression of his inner self, but now, having been with María for six years and
having experienced the depth of her commitment, Borges is able to write in a way
that is “not mere nostalgia” but a celebration of the present. He is at last finding
satisfaction in the imminent.
Beyond the thematic and personal elements that make these poems
interesting, one of the most interesting characteristics comes as an absence.
While Borges seems to gesture towards the form of the kenning with his opening
lines of the two poems, especially “Islandia,” they are nevertheless so
conspicuously absent that they are nearly present. In other words, in the regular
interviews given by Borges on Iceland, on Old Norse texts, and on Scandinavia in
general, Borges had a standard litany of images and motifs that he would
reference (e.g., Odin offering sacrifice to himself, the boat of fingernails, the early
manifestation of the novel, etc.) and most prominent, indeed often the first
among them, was the kenning. So, in a text dedicated to the country in which
they were the most diligently conserved, it is very unusual that they would be
missing.
This lack of kennings, especially in “Islandia,” combined with the images
evoked in the poem of the mythological figure Baldr, of the wolves that usher in
the night and day, of the personified memory of Germany, and the incongruities
between the Vikings and the modern Icelander, all evince an apotheosis of
Borges’s literary effect. As shown in the following section on The Prose Edda,
Borges adapts his personality, in “Islandia” it appears he is adapting the entire
breadth and length of Icelandic culture when in fact he is appropriating only
58
those aspects of Norse culture—in isolation, separated from their context—that
most strongly resonate with the Borgesian conceits, and, as the consummate
irony, with the most prominent symbol of Nordic literature (made prominent in
Hispanidad in part due to his patronage), the kenning, the literary device that he
would later say best symbolizes his early, modern sensibilities, he leaves it out. A
gesture that marks, in a way, a separation from those earlier, as perceived by
Borges, failures. His early life was filled with disappointment and heartache, and
now with María, he was ready to make a break.
Translation
Prose Edda
In the years following the publication of these two poems and the publication of
Borges’s translation of the first section of Snorri Sturluson’s Prose Edda, a great
deal happened in Borges’s public and private life. Having backed General Videla
as an alternative to Perón puppet democracy, he was now having serious
misgivings. The Dirty War, from around 1976 to 1983, which resulted in the death
or “disappearance” of at least 20,000 people, the war over the Maldives/Falkland
Islands, and an overwhelming degree of nationalism, eventually led Borges to
reconsider his position and once again endorse democracy.
His relationship with María continued in happiness. Borges’s attempts to
convince her to marry him to satisfy his Victorian inclinations became something
of a joke between the two of them; she persisted in her resolve to remain together
by simple, verbal commitment. They also traveled extensively as Borges’s fame
59
called him to various sides of the planet to receive honorary doctorates and other
awards.
By 1984, Borges was recognized internationally as the father of
postmodernism and, to be sure, one of the greatest contemporary authors of the
time. Borges had become many different things to many different people
including the genial host of Medieval Germanic literature to the Spanishspeaking world. With his 1951 treatment of Antiguas Literaturas Germánicas,
which was the first work published in Spanish that focused on Old Germanic
literature at length and his earlier, 1933, lengthy description of the Nordic
kenning, which was also the first description of its kind for Spanish speakers,
Borges had become a key intermediary for medieval Germanic literature for all of
Hispanidad.
So, by 1984, after having studied Old English for over thirty years and Old
Norse for more than ten and having written numerous introductory works and
various translations, Borges decided to attempt translating what for many is the
cornerstone of Old Norse literature, the first section of The Prose Edda,
“Gylfaginning.” 8 In “Gylfaginning,” the Swedish king Gylfi essentially stumbles
upon the hall of the gods, Valhalla. While there, the gods execute an elaborate
display of allusions and tricks intended to confuse and disorient Gylfi. The
delusions are undertaken by the gods at the expense of Gylfi, hence
“Gylfaginning,” i.e. “the deluding of Gylfi.”
In Sigrún Ástríður Eiríksdóttir’s essay describing the Icelandic subtext in Borges’s
short stories, she uses Gylfaginning as a model to describe Borges’s prosaic method.
She finds the role of the narrator in the Icelandic text as the model for that of
Borges’s texts. I think she is certainly on the right track in some of the other
conclusions in this article, here, however, I think she extends the connection too far.
8
60
Borges’s title to his translation, however, is La alucinación de Gylfi (The
Hallucination of Gylfi), a title that changes the source of the illusion. Of this
change, Efraín Kristal says,
Borges’s choice of “Halucination” erases the divine flavor of the title,
which underscores the Gods’ ability to deceive mortals. A substitution of
the notion of “Hallucination” for that of “deception” provided an
orientation for the meaning of Borges’s translation. In his version the gods
have produced a hallucination for Gylfi, but they themselves may be a
hallucination. Borges is shifting an action perpetrated by the gods into a
personal experience partially induced by the gods. (80)
This shift of focus is a particularly Borgesian conceit. He takes what in the text
comes as an outward influence on Gylfi and makes it one that finds its origin in
Gylfi himself. It is a dream for which Gylfi is responsible. Not too unlike what
happens in “The Circular Ruins” or “El Aleph,” where the key to the mystery is a
personal one.
Further prototypical Borgesian moments of course abound as the work
progresses. For instance, the penultimate section of the work, section 54, can be
closely translated:
Því næst heyrði Gangleri dyni mikla hvern veg frá sér ok leit út á hlið sér.
Ok þá er hann sést meir um, þá stendr hann úti á sléttum velli, sér þá enga
höll ok enga borg. Gengr hann þá leið sína braut ok kemr heim í ríki sitt ok
segir þau tíðendi, er hann hefir sét ik heyrt, ok eftir honum sagði hverr
maðr öðrum þessar sögur.
61
Next Gangleri heard loud noises coming at him from all directions. He
looked to one side and, when he looked back again, he was standing
outside on a level plain, where he saw neither the hall nor the fortress. He
left and traveled back home to his kingdom, where he told of the events
that he had seen and what he had heard. And after him, people passed
these stories down from on to the other. (Byock 78)
Borges’s version reads:
Gangleri oyó a su alrededor mucho ruido y al mirar vio que estaba a la
intemperie en campo abierto y no había ni sala ni castillo. Entonces
prosiguió caminando y volvió a su reino y contó esas cosas que había visto
y oído, y después de él los hombres siguieron contándolas. (104)
Gangleri heard loud noises all around him and when he looked he saw he
was outdoors in open air and there was neither hall nor castle. Then he
proceeded walking and returned to his kingdom and he told those things
he had seen and heard, and after him people continued telling them.
(Kristal 81)
The first, nearer the original, translation makes it seem that by legerdemain, as
Gylfi looks to the left that the Gods are able to realize the completion of their
illusion; Borges doesn’t include this look, and thus, by omission, further
enhances the sense of hallucination and dreamscape.
But in terms of omissions, the most notable comes in Borges’s complete
erasure of section fifty-five. There the gods come together after having spent the
previous fifty-four sections weaving an elaborate deceit and decide what changes
they would need to make so that in the future when the stories are being told by
62
the decedents of Gylfi, there is outside evidence to corroborate them. And while
the textual authenticity of this passage is doubted among Scandinavian scholars,
as Borges’s approach and his emphasis on the solipsistic perspective has here
been framed, it is perfectly clear that regardless of the section’s authenticity,
Borges would not—could not—include such a, in a way, dogmatic confirmation of
external verification.
“Gylfaginning,” then, is a text that, from the perspective of a twentieth
century reader, seems quite Borgesian. It is filled with deceit, trickery, and
subterfuge and seems to privilege mere appearance over reality, indeed, if ever
there were a text that prefigures Borges, this is it. Consequently, when translated
by Borges, it moves from being a pseudo- or proto-Borgesian text to an overtly
Borgesian one. That is to say, Borges adapts the text through and to his own
literary orientation.
Summary
Starting from his childhood encounter with the Völsunga Saga, to his works of
literary criticism on the kenning and Germanic medieval texts in general, to his
various Scandinavian poems and essays, and ending with his, in the words of
Efraín Kristal, “culminating” (79) work and translation La alucinación de Gylfi, it
is clear, from this survey, that Borges’s engagement with Scandinavian history
and especially its texts was sustained and intimate. For Borges, his interest in the
North was not a passing whim, but rather a constant source of inspiration and
63
allegory: He not only had thematic literary sympathies, but, as the profusion of
biographical details elucidate, saw parallels and patterns to his own life.
This survey is incomplete, however, as the genre for which Borges is most
well known, the short story, has yet to be addressed. Their absence is not to
suggest that they are exceptional, that so many other facets of his work were
influenced by the North, but not his short stories. Starting from his early stories
in Historia Universal de la Infamia, to Ficciones, El Aleph, El Hacedor, El
informe de Brodie, and even his last collection of short stories Veinticinco agosto
1983 y otros cuentos, Borges alludes to, interweaves, and rewrites Nordic myth
and literature. Indeed, just as the Borges of “El Zahir” reworked Fafnir and
Sigurd’s story, so too are the stories of “La Intrusa,” “El Disco,” “El Espejo y la
máscara,” etc. strong readings of myths, sagas, folk literature. For some of the
stories in these collections, the reference is complete and sustained, whereas in
others the reference is little more than a cameo that adds to the stories
complexity and obscurity. Of all of Borges’s collections, El Libro de Arena has the
most references to Scandinavia, and of those, the two stories most deeply rooted
in the area are “Undr” and “Ulrica.”
64
65
Chapter 3
“He perdido la cuenta de mis libros. Quizá todos
son prescindibles; si tuviera que elegir dos, optaría
por El libro de arena y por Historia de la
noche” (Borges, “El Taller” 358)
(I’ve lost count of my books. Perhaps all are
redundant; if I had to choose two, I would opt
for The Book of Sand and History of the Night”)
“Mi mejor libro… [es] El Libro de Arena.”
(Borges, “Así escribo” 30)
(My best book… [is] The Book of Sand.)
Introduction
In both instances, the epigraphs come from workshops that Borges gave on his
mode of composition. In each of those workshops, as he works through his
process, he comments on the merits of his work. In Borges’s estimation, his early
work was convoluted and obsessed with novelty, and it is not until his later work,
that he finds straightforward narrative. In the prologue to El Informe de Brodie
(published just before El Libro de Arena) he writes: “He renunciado a las
sorpresas de un estilo barroco… durante muchos años creí que me será dado
alcanzar una buena página mediante variaciones y novedades; ahora, cumplidos
los setenta, creo haber encontrado mi voz” (OC 2:400) [I have renounced the
surprises of baroque style… for many years I believed that I would achieve good
66
work through variation and novelty; now, at seventy, I believe I’ve found my
voice]. Herbert J. Brant reads this as Borges, in preparation for his death,
attempting to “make sense out of what had previously appeared impenetrable,
or... [to make] a new unity” (73).
As covered by the survey, Borges largely felt his younger sensibilities
aligned with the decadence of the skalds, as best symbolized in their complex
rules and obscure kennings. It can be said, then, that later in life, his model was
the saga. In commenting on “La Intrusa,” Borges said that it was “the first of my
new ventures into straightforward storytelling. From this beginning I went on to
write many others” (The Aleph 279). And commenting on that same story while
in Iceland he said, “Þegar ég skrifaði hana, reyndi ég að ganga eins hreint til verks
og höfundar Íslendiga sagna. Ég hafði þær að fyrirmynd” (Johannessen 221)
[when I wrote it, I tried to proceed as the authors of the Icelandic sagas. I had
them as examples].
In this chapter the focus will now be on Borges’s short stories. In all of his
collections, from Historia Universal de la Infamia to his last publication of
stories, Atlas, there are references and even sustained re-workings of Nordic
texts. As in the survey, the focus here will only be on those stories that most
openly signal their connection to old Scandinavian material. The two texts that
will be examined at length both come from the same collection: El Libro de
Arena (Book of Sand). Of the thirteen stories published in that collection, six of
the stories (“El disco,” “El soborno,” “Undr,” “El espejo y la máscara,” “La noche
de los dones,” and “Ulrica”) center on Nordic myth and history. The two sections
in this chapter will give detailed explication of “Undr” and “Ulrica.” To reiterate,
67
the argument is that Borges used the Nordic works as source material for strong
readings, strong readings that endow the text with a sense of the Borgesian;
Borgesian, moreover, insofar as it reflects the Borges of the moment. For the texts
treated in the survey there was relatively little secondary material: ALG and LGM
had only briefly been discussed in Margrét Jónsdóttir’s article; “Islandia” and “A
Islandia” had no formal treatment; “Ragnarök” was analyzed at some length in
Williamson’s biography; and Borges’s translation of “Gylfaginning” was only
seriously treated in Efraín Kristal’s work on Borges and translation. For the texts
that follow, however, there has been greater critical attention. Thus, each article’s
section will begin with a brief sketch of the story, followed by a review of the
relevant secondary material, and then conclude with close readings similar to
those in the survey.
“Undr”
“Undr” begins with an introductory paragraph that frames the narrative.
According to the introduction, the narrative could be an extract from Adam of
Bremen’s Libellus, which had been missing for centuries and only found recently
by Lappenberg in the Bodleian library. What follows is a translation of that work
by Borges that “no es literal, pero … digna de fe” (48) [“is not literal, but … is
faithful” (59)].
The story proper begins with a description of a people known as Urns.
They live within the lowlands of the Wisla river valley and, unlike their neighbors
to the north, are Christian. They are a warrior people and “debido a la
inclemencia de la guerras casi no aran la tierra” (48) [“the severity of their wars
68
almost entirely prevents them from tilling their lands.” 59]. After this brief
description of the Urns, he, presumably Adam of Bremen, recounts his
conversation with Ulf Sigurdarson.
After their obligatory exchange in Latin, as they both are clergymen, they
speak in Old Norse, and Ulf recounts the story of his interaction with the Urns.
He said that as a skald he had a natural affinity for their language and culture as
it was rumored they had achieved the ultimate economy of expression in their
poetics of the single word. When he arrives, after much effort, to their land, he is
treated with indifference and enmity. He fortunately finds refuge with a smith,
named Orm, who conveys the history and nature of the people and their king,
named Gunnlaug. According to Orm, Gunnlaug greatly mistrusts foreigners such
that he often crucifies them. Ulf, after hearing this, decides to compose a drápa
in the king’s honor, and as soon as he commits it to memory, two men from the
king come to retrieve him and take him to the hall of the king. On their way there,
Ulf sees three different colored posts, with something different mounted on each:
first, a yellow post topped with a black fish; second, a red post topped with a disk;
third, a black post with a symbol Ulf could no longer remember. After passing
these three posts, Ulf is taken into the presence of the king, who appears to be
suffering from a great sickness, and who is laying atop a bed that looks like a dais.
Ulf repeats his drápa for the king, is given a silver ring for his efforts, and
pushed aside as room is made for an Urn court poet. His poem brings hush and
rapture, even tears as the audience absorbs it. Ulf recalls hearing someone
describe the poem “Ahora no quiere decir nada” (50) [“Now, meaningless” (62)].
When the poet finishes, everyone disperses. As Ulf walks off, he’s stopped by
69
someone who says his name is Bjarni Thorkelsson. Bjarni tells Ulf that they come
from common stock and as such feels compelled to warn Ulf that now he has
heard the word, he will be put to death. Bjarni offers to help Ulf escape, and just
before Ulf escapes, he asks Bjarni to reveal to him the word that he supposedly
heard. Bjarni demurs and says “nadie puede enseñar nada” (50) [“no one can
teach another anything” (62)]. Once they part, Ulf says that he spent many
winters of adventure fleeing the Urn king; in that retreat he played many parts
and experienced many things: slave merchant, slave, cantor, assayer of deep
waters; loved and was loved, dueled, and fought in many battles. Ulf said, “En el
curso del tiempo he sido muchos, pero ese torbellino fue un largo sueño” (50)
[“In the course of time I have been many men, but that whirlwind of events was
one long dream” (63)]. Over all of that time, however, he continued to wonder
about the word, and, while sitting on the banks of a river that widened into the
sea, he believed that he finally knew what it was.
To be vindicated in his revelation he returned to the land of the Urns to
find Thorkelsson. Once he found Thorkelsson, he realized how much the two of
them had aged. Ulf asks after the king, and is told by Bjarni that Gunnlaug is no
longer the king and that “Ahora es otro su nombre” (51) [“Now his name is other”
(63)]. Ulf quickly, in order to get to the matter at hand, describes his journeys
since they last saw each other, and then is interrupted by Bjarni, who quite
surprisingly asks “¿Qué te dio la primera mujer que tuviste?” [“What were you
given by the first woman you slept with?” (64)]. To which Ulf responds “Todo”
(51) [“Everything” (64)]. Upon hearing this Bjarni reveals the word. The final
paragraph reads:
70
Dijo la palabra Undr, que quiere decir maravilla. Me sentí arrebatado por
el canto del hombre que moría, pero en su canto y en su acorde vi mis
propios trabajos, la esclava que me dio el primer amor, los hombres que
maté las albas de frío, la aurora sobre el agua, los remos. Tomé el arpa y
canté con una palabra distinta. “Está bien” dijo el otro y tuve que
acercarme para oírlo. “Me has entendido.” (51)
He spoke the word Undr, which means wonder. I was overwhelmed by the
song of the man who lay dying, but in his song, and in his chord, I saw my
own labors, the slave girl who had given me her first love, the men I had
killed, the cold dawns, the northern lights over the water, the oars. I took
up the harp and sang—a different word. “Hmm,” said the poet, and I had
to draw close to hear him. “You have understood me.” (64)
Review of Secondary Material
The first critic who treats “Undr” at greatest length is Sigrún Astríður Eiríksdóttir
in her article entitled “Icelandic Sagas and Archetypes in Jorge Luis Borges’s
‘Undr.’” In Sigrún’s estimation, “‘Undr’ is arguably Borges’ most closely glossed
and extended reference to the Old Icelandic literary sources” (315). Her argument
progresses by making contrasts and connections, principally between Christianity
and paganism: the Urns are Christian, and even quite uniquely believers in the
consubstantiality of the three parts of the trinity as opposed to the Arian concept
of Christ’s inferiority to the Father, but yet they still use the runic alphabet, a
writing system steeped in lore and magical pagan powers (see 317); to put a finer
point on this observation (one that Sigrún misses), once they were converted to
71
Christianity they would have acquired the Latin alphabet, the script of the
church. For her, the most important contrast comes in the figures latently, and
sometimes expressly, invoked throughout the story: Odin and Christ. When Ulf is
being taken to the king, he sees the three posts each holding a different symbol.
According to Sigrún, the fish represents Christianity and the red post and its disc
represent Odin and paganism. After identifying the symbols, she observes, “Lined
up starkly beside the fish of Christianity, the heathen sign of Odin’s disk seems to
be endowed with exactly the same importance,” and then asks “Is this the eternal
recurrence in which Christ has replaced Odin, effecting only cosmetic and not
fundamental changes to the process which has always been taking place?” (322)
The questions are clearly articulated and the process appears sound, but the
obvious mistake is the order in which she has Ulf encounter each stake: red stake
and disk then black stake and fish, when in fact, the correct order is first the fish,
or in her assessment Christianity, then the disk or paganism. In light of her later
conclusions, the distinction is not unimportant. Of those two figures, Odin and
Christ, and their relationship with expression, with the word or words, she uses
the kenning (representing Odin, the god of poetry and expression) and the skalds
employment of it as the primary literary trope in contrast to the single word
(representing Christ, the Word made flesh) of the Urns. She says, “Kennings can
… be multiple or layered, when an additional word is made to qualify a basic
kenning another step beyond the object it denotes … [i.e.] since the raven is a
‘gull of hate,’ then the warrior responsible for the corpses on which the raven
feeds becomes a ‘nourisher of gulls of hate’” (328). With that in mind, she goes on
to summarize, where the “single word of the Urnos [is reductive] … the kenning
72
can be thought of as ‘expansive’ in its tendency to multiply the relationships
between objects or events” (328). Said differently, and more explicitly connected
to the figures in question, Christ represents the summary or apex of all
expression, in a sense he is the culmination of all words; and in contrast, Odin
represents the proliferation of words, from him all expression originates. The
following diagram shows this flow of expression for the two figures:
Odin
Christ
In the brief history of the Urns, as told by Bjarni, this transition from the poetics
of Odin to the poetics of Christ is clear. When Bjarni goes to rescue Ulf he says, of
the kennings, that “Recuerdo haber oído esas figuras al padre de mi padre” (50)
“I remember hearing those tropes from my father’s father” (62). “Thus in the
generation of Thorkelsson’s grandfather there existed what we understand as
traditional poetry [of Odin], but in the interim it has given way to the poetry of
the word [of Christ]” (Stewart 59).
Returning to those three posts, Sigrún’s contention that the ethics of
Christ supplants that of Odin seems to rely on historical accounts, and in a way
the history of the Urns, rather that what Borges conveys. The order of the posts is
first Christ, then Odin. The movement suggests eschewing the economy of the
single word for its veritable frenzy. Understanding these two signposts in that
way helps clarify both the ending and the third signpost. Starting with the third
signpost, Ulf says “vi un poste pintado de negro, con un dibujo que he olvidado”
73
(49) [“I saw a stake painted black, bearing a design I no longer remember” (61)].
This forgetfulness, in Sigrún’s mind, suggests that as of yet it is not entirely clear
what will replace Christ, or the single Word. The ending however, provides
perhaps a more likely meaning for the third post. When Bjarni finally reveals for
him that the word is “Undr” (Wonder), Ulf’s response is a reflection on his life,
the events of his quest, and then a song, whose only distinctive quality lies in its
difference. This latter fact, and the circumstances from which it was borne, for
Bjarni represent Ulf’s comprehension of the third post: meaning without recourse
to any metaphysical system (words without claim to transcendent signification),
but rather difference (in the Derridean sense) as the crucial component that
bestows meaning.
In other words, true to Sigrún’s analysis, the historical evolution has been
cyclical: from paganism (multiplicity), to Christianity (unity), to paganism
(multiplicity). But the next phase, instead of relying on, or making claims to any
system beyond the situatedness of being, will be one of contingency: meaning
only coming from the difference of one perspective to an other, a perspective that
is fixed in a given space and time, in a given person. This analysis is consistant
with Jon Stewart’s examination of “Undr” in his article “Idealism in Two Stories
from The Book of Sand.”
The two stories in Stewart’s study are “Undr” and the story that
immediately precedes it in the collection, “El Espejo y la máscara” (“The Mirror
and the Mask”). The nub of his argument is that “the two stories present … a
literary argument for idealism” (51). In the concluding paragraph of his section
on “Undr,” he writes, “the story begins with a traditional conception of poetry,
74
according to which individual things are described and portrayed lucidly in
accordance with the rules of the craft. At the end of [the story] there is a
revelation caused by a poem which consists in … a single word…. the movement is
from plurality to singularity” (61). The singularity, contrary to what Stewart
asserts, however, is not the singularity of the Word, but that of the given
individual, for, just as Sigrún ignores the poet’s last assertion that Ulf understood
him by virtue of difference, so too does Stewart. With that omission, he goes on to
state, somewhat dogmatically, “no one can teach [Ulf] Sigurdsson knowledge of
the Word; he must discover the meaning of the word ‘wonder’ in the wonders of
his own life” (63). From there, though, he parts quite inexplicably from this
appeal to noumenal recognition on the part of the protagonist, to an
interpretation more consonant with difference and particularity: “The individual
experiences of wonder are not the Word or the truth, but rather they serve only to
bring that truth, which was always in Sigurdsson, to consciousness.”
Apart from Sigrún and Stewart, two other critics, in the context of their
analysis of El Libro de Arena as a whole, briefly analyze “Undr.” The first, already
mentioned, Herbert Brant, believes the works all symbolize Borges’s preparation
for his death. Brant says, “The preparation for death, announcing the ending
point for earthly life, is the goal of the final stage of physical existence. Part of this
preparation is effected by means of dreams” (75). He then goes on to say, in
connection with Jung’s concept of individuation, that “the process of
individuation that has been expressed in the works of Jorge Luis Borges can be
understood as a process that attempts to join the divided psyche into a unified
whole in preparation for the end of the physical stage of life” (75), and the form of
75
this dream process that prepares the dreamer for death usually has these
characteristics:
1) the presence of a guide which usually takes the form of a particularly
wise female or of the “personal ‘other’ half of the soul of the dying
individual”; 2) an intruder who puts the dreamer in danger; 3) situations
which provide compensation for the missed opportunities of youth; and 4)
an exploration or discovery of objects that represent the after-life. (76)
This model proves particularly useful in analyzing “Undr” as it not only
corresponds to what Borges may in fact be undergoing personally, but also
dramatizes the process in its protagonist Ulf. For Ulf, “Ese torbellino [la vida] fue
un largo sueño” (50) [“the whirlwind of events [life] was one long dream” (63)].
More will be said on this momentarily.
The fourth critic that treats “Undr” is Franca Mariani in her “Los incipit de
El Libro de Arena.” The core of her essay is that, “el incipit puede estimular el
interés del lector crítico por constituir un segmento narrativo privilegiado en el
que, a veces, se puede captar la esencia misma del texto” (89) [the incipit can
stimulate the critical reader’s interest in how a privileged segment of the
narrative can embody the essence of the whole], and that, “La importancia del
incipit como lugar en el que se inicia la relación autor/lector puede resultar a
veces un juego abierto, simulación escrita de una relación real” (89) [the
importance of the incipit, as place in which the relationship between the author
and the reader begins, can turn out to be an open game, a written simulation of a
real relationship]. In short, her point is somewhat banal: first impressions are
often the lasting ones. It is important, however, to understand these gestures in
76
“Undr,” with its immediate appeal to the reader, informing her that what follows
is a translation of a recently found manuscript, as gestures by Borges to, from the
beginning, create a relationship of ironic distance.
Explication
Before looking at the way this fits into the context of Borges’s life, a closer look at
some of the allusions, beyond what has already been mentioned in the review of
literature, is important to understand how this story works within the framework
of this thesis.
The first reference of note in the framing paragraph is to the 1615 edition
of Adam of Bremen’s Libellus that was found in the Bodleian library by
Lappenberg and published in his Analecta Germanica in 1894. Adam of Bremen
was the historian for the archdiocese of Hamburg-Bremen, which included the
whole Nordic region until the middle of the twelfth century. His Gesta, of which
the Libellus formed the fourth chapter, was written between 1073 and 1076 AD
and primarily reported the missionary efforts in the North. By the time he was
writing, some of the areas within the archdiocese had been Christian and under
Christian rule for almost a century. The 1615 edition of the work, according to the
eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica to which Borges was particularly
devoted, was the first complete printing of the Gesta. It was also the first time it
had been printed in Sweden, Uppsala to be precise, which is symbolically
important because, as Borges in “Undr” points out, Uppsala was the last
stronghold of pagan worship. The Lappenberg mentioned is most assuredly
Johann Martin Lappenberg, who in 1846 did indeed publish his edition of the
77
Gesta. He died in 1865 long before his supposed republication of just the Libellus
in 1894. The reference to 1894 Leipzig is likely a reference to one of the most
famous chess matches of all time between Theodor von Scheve and Siegbert
Tarrasch. If in fact this reference to Leipzig of 1894 is to the chess match, which
would give some explanation to the chessboard laid out next to the king
Gunnlaug when Ulf met him. King Gunnlaug and the smith Orm seem to
reference the skald of that name in the family saga entitled Gunnlaugs Saga
Ormstungu (The Story of Gunnlaug the Worm-Tongue).
Of all of the family sagas, none are more literary, in both theme and
composition, than Gunnlaugs Saga Ormstungu. Gunnlaug is a poet that has
received a vow that when he returns from his Viking trips he will have the hand of
the woman with whom he spent his youth playing chess, and who also happened
to be the most beautiful person in Iceland’s history: Helga Thorsteinsdóttir. The
one condition, however, is that he return to Iceland after three years abroad
otherwise the agreement is null. While abroad, he goes from one court to the next
earning kings’ respect and patronage by his superlative poetry. For the king of
Sweden, Norway, England, and Denmark he composes skaldic poetry, and each
rewards him handsomely. When visiting the Swedish king, though, he runs into
competition. Having arrived before Gunnlaug, Raven, another poet, feels he
already has the ear of the king, and thus begins a poetic turf war: each side
volleys back and forth one poem after another, each touting their skills.
Eventually the king placates them by saying they both can be his poets. Neither
one is happy with the arrangement and eventually decide to part ways. Raven
goes back to Iceland and Gunnlaug back to his voyages; he’s eventually detained
78
for some time in England during its war with Denmark: he is too essential to King
Ethelred. Once Raven gets back to Iceland and while he’s attending the Thing, he
approaches Helga’s father, Thorsteinn. Raven reminds him that the three years
have passed and that he no longer has any obligation to Gunnlaug. Thorsteinn is
conflicted because he doesn’t want bad blood with Gunnlaug, and, truthfully,
feels Gunnlaug would make a better match. Before long, however, Raven’s
purposes are achieved and he and Helga are married.
Once Gunnlaug returns, several duels—both of words and weapons—ensue
between the two men. With every battle of weapons comes an equally intense
battle of verse; they’re not only testing their military mettle, but also their verbal
acuity. Eventually, it ends in something of a stalemate: Gunnlaug chops off
Ravens leg and then runs him through with his sword, but only after Raven takes
a cheap shot that wounds Gunnlaug fatally.
The connections between this story and “Undr” are notable: a traveling
Icelandic skald is led by a man named Orm to perform for a foreign king named
Gunnlaug; once he performs, he is succeeded by a rival poet; the subject of the
conflict between the two poets (in both stories, their claims to authority over the
word) eventually leads to both of their deaths.
As for biographical connections, in the chronology of Borges’s
publications, the story “Undr” comes between writing “A Islandia” and
“Islandia.” Borges’s mother died the same year of its publication, he had been
with María for over five years, and the literary significance of his work was now
beyond question. He had already been to Iceland once and because of that trip
had become ever more engaged with Icelandic texts in their original language. As
79
earlier mentioned, this engagement engendered a flowering of Nordic themed
poems and stories, principally in his work El Libro de Arena. In discussing that
book Matthías Johannessen reports, in his collection of interviews, “Nú vinnur
hann að sex eða sjö smásögum, sem eiga ad koma út í bók á næsta ári. [Borges
sagði] “Ekki fantasíur eins og fyrri sögur mínar, heldur knappar, einfaldar og
blátt áfram.”” (224) [He now works on six or seven short stories, which should be
published next year. [Borges said,] “They are not like the fantasies of my earlier
stories, rather they are concise, simple, and straightforward”]. In other words,
they are saga-like.
Conclusion
The complexity of what is happening in this story can, in a way, becomes clear in
Borges’s final remarks in that interview with Matthías Johannessen. Johannessen
asks if there is any link between what happens in works of fiction to what
happens in real life. Borges responds:
Ég ímynda mér, að lestur bóka geti orðið eins og hver önnur reynsla í
lífinu, hvað eigum við að segja: að verda ástfanginn; upplifa dauða
einhvers? Bók er raunverulegur viðburður í lðifi okkar. Hún er ekki
blekking. Enginn veit, hvað lífið er. Kannski er það draumur. En mér er
nær að halda, að góð bók sé eins mikilvægur þáttur í draumi okkar og hvað
annað. (254)
(I imagine that reading a book can be like any other experience in life, such
as falling in love or having someone you know die. A book is a real
experience in our life. It is not mere deception. No one knows what life is.
80
Perhaps it’s a dream. To me it comes as near the point to think that a good
book is just as important in our dream as anything else.)
What was intended to be a more straightforward story, devoid of former
fantasies, is certainly not lacking in its complexity. The many literary false-leads
(e.g., Lappenberg, Adam of Bremen, dividing Gunnlaug Worm-tongue over two
characters, etc.) serve as a kind of literary wasteland, to obfuscate possible
meaning. Pulling from Sigrún’s and Stewart’s conclusions, the meaning remains
contingent, without any transcendent connections. This, in short, is a story of
loneliness, isolation, and insecure solipsism. Borges is emotionally at a breaking
point, caught between two competing ideologies: Mother and her strict code of
ethics and devotion to family honor, and María Kodoma and her promise of love
and devotion but on her terms, terms that remain discordant with mother’s. This
is Borges at his most unsure. The representation of Borges here takes on
particular significance in its contrast to the fate of the Borges character of
“Ulrica.”
“Ulrica”
Even for Borges, “Ulrica” is a particularly strange story. Throughout its short
three pages, the sense of otherworldliness and dreamscape pervade. Everything
asserted is, often within the same sentence, eventually denied. Particular to that,
and with special significance to this thesis, the opening line, the epigraph is,
“Hann tekr sverthit Gram ok leggr i methal theira bert” (OC 3:17); the line from
the Völsunga Saga where Sigurd lays the sword between him and Brynhild; an
action, not until the last paragraph, most notably denied.
81
The narrator of the story is a late middle-aged professor from Columbia
visiting York on research. While taking tea at his hotel, he overhears a
conversation between two guests: one of the guests, a woman, is being offered a
glass of sherry by another. The woman declines, and with flare says, “Soy
feminista … No quiero remedar a los hombres.” (17) [“I’m a feminist … I have no
desire to imitate men.” (12)]. Upon hearing this, the narrator wastes no time in
being introduced to this strong woman. His name is Javier Otárola and hers
Ulrica, he never did get her last name. After some small talk, they separate. The
next morning, Ulrica invites Javier over to breakfast with her, and from then on
Javier is in love. They go on a walk, where they hear the far-off howl of a wolf,
discuss the swords Ulrica saw at the museum, and in time, begin kissing. Ulrica
stops Javier from going further, and tells him he cannot have her until they get to
the inn at Thorgate. A condition that Javier wryly observes, “Para un hombre
célibe entrado en años, el ofrecido amor es un don que ya no se espera. El milagro
tiene derecho a imponer condiciones” (18) [“For a celibate, middle-aged man,
proffered love is a gift that one no longer hopes for; a miracle has the right to
impose conditions” (14)]. While they continue onto Thorgate, they review with
each other their names, and decide since for each the other’s name is too difficult
to pronounce, they will refer to one another as Sigurd and Brunhild, and, to
ensure the reference is fully comprehended, Javier says to Ulrica, presumably
because she was walking slowly: “Brynhild, caminas como si quisieras que entre
los dos hubiera una espada en el lecho” (19) [“Brunhild, you are walking as
though you wanted a sword to lie between us in our bed” (15)]. When they get to
82
the inn, and climb the stairs lined with wallpaper that resembles the tapestry
patterns of William Morris, they find an empty room. In it:
Ulrica ya se había desvestido. Me llamó por mi verdadero nombre, Javier.
Sentí que la nieve arreciaba. Ya no quedaban muebles ni espejos. No había
una espada entre los dos. Como la arena se iba el tiempo. Secular en la
sombra fluyó el amor y poseí por primera y última vez la imagen de Ulrica.
(19)
Ulrikke had already undressed. She called me by my true name, Javier. I
sensed that the snow was coming down harder. Now there was no more
furniture, no more mirrors. There was no sword between us. Like sand,
time sifted away. Ancient in the dimness flowed love, and for the first and
last time, I possessed the image of Ulrikke. (16)
Review of Secondary Material
The focus for the majority of the secondary material for this story is its
association with the dream. Teodosio Fernández concludes his essay in a way that
nicely summarizes this branch of criticism:
Las posibilidades [de la literatura escandinava] culmina en “Ulrica,” ….
Reminiscencias de ese pasado (en particular el aullido del lobo, tan
presente en las antiguas literaturas germánicas) enriquecen el enigmático
encuentro de Ulrica y Javier Otárola en la ciudad de York, un encuentro
que—como el antiguo mundo escandinavo—es como si no hubiera sido,
como si transcurriera en un sueño. (94)
83
(The possibilities [of Scandinavian literature] culminates in “Ulrica,” ….
references to this past (especially the allusion to the wolf, often present in
Medieval Germanic literature) enriches the enigmatic story of Ulrica and
Javier Otárola in the city of York, a story that—as Medieval Scandinavia
itself—is as if it never were, as if it were a dream.)
In other words, the dreamscape is created by and with the Scandinavian
allusions. Herbert J. Brant discusses this sense of the dream, as earlier
referenced, at great length. In line with the schematic attributed to Jung, he has
Ulrica act as the wise female guide in Javier’s process of individuation. This
process of individuation for Javier, however, is even more significant as it
prefigures his death.
As von Franz points out, the motif of the union of male and female as
described in “Ulrica,” frequently symbolized the “death wedding” that has
been so universally noted throughout the ages in fairy tales and folk
stories. In a sense, the death wedding is a “description of the completed
individuation process, of an ultimate union of psychic opposites, a
liberation from all egocentricity and an ecstatic entrance into a state of
divine wholeness” (45). The union of Javier and Ulrica, the soul guide, is a
symbolic declaration of death, when the spirit is set free from the physical
world. (77)
Indeed, a death that perhaps prefigures his physical death, but just as likely la
petite mort. Borges himself points out in the epilogue, “El tema del amor es harto
común en mis versos; no así en mi prosa, que no guarda otro ejemplo que Ulrica”
(OC 3:72) [“The subject of love is quite common in my poetry; not so in my prose,
84
where the only example is “Ulrikke” (94)]. “Ulrica” has the distinction of being
Borges’s most sexual story. Javier, the Borges figure, is not at any moment in the
work, exactly filled with confidence. He is timid, trusting, and submissive. He has
hope, but remains cautious in his conquest. Just as Ulf in “Undr” ends his quest
for the culminating word with resignation that his closest approximation will
come in the form of difference, so too does Javier feel resigned to accept the
conditions of this tryst as the closest he will come to achieving that individuating
union.
85
Chapter 4
In an interview with Williamson, María Kodoma said that Borges told her that
Ulrica was “meant to represent her” (398). This mysterious female guide that led
an aging scholar into death, was what María would be for almost two decades of
Borges’s final years. In Williamson’s final comments on the story he says,
“‘Ulrica’ [is] about Borges’s liberation from the sword” (399). When Borges was
preparing the publication of “Ulrica” journalist Carlos Burone witnessed the
process of final revision: “[Borges] would move his head and smile, as if he were
spying on his two characters.” (qtd. Williamson 414).
To be sure, María meant a great deal to Borges. Besides his mother, he had
never been with a woman for such an extended period of time; moreover, he had
never been with a woman that seemed to have as much dedication to him as she
to him. While in Iceland on their second visit, he and María had been married,
only symbolically as it had no legal effect, by the only pagan priest still practicing
(see Williamson 422). It was not until Borges was somewhat older at 87 that this
marriage would become legal.
Borges’s Monument and “Ulrica”
Borges died in Geneva, Switzerland from cancer on June 14, 1986. He died in
self-imposed exile. He was no longer interested in being caught in the political
and familial disputes of his home and country. Through some international
efforts, he and María finally had their marriage legalized by a Paraguayan court.
He died in relative peace.
86
Of his monument, no one knows, or at least is willing to confess, who
designed it; many believe it was done by Borges or María. I’m inclined to believe
the latter. The first side of the rough-hewn monument, which is very much in the
style of the rune stones found throughout northern Europe, has his name
inscribed on the top, and his vital data at the bottom. Between the two, there is an
image from the Lindisfarne gravestone, which depicts what is believed to be the
first Viking attack on England, and an inscription from the Old English poem
“The Battle of Maldon,” which reads, “And ne forhtedon na” [Be not afraid].
The battle of Maldon is one of the most gruesome recordings of a Viking battle.
The forces of Byrhtnoth valiantly struggled against the Norsemen. As they
prepared to go into battle Byrhtnoth rallied his men, and told them to “And ne
87
forhtedon na” [Be not afraid] and to stand firm with steady hands. Their forces,
though, were eventually overcome; a defeat that led to Viking rule of England for
over twenty years. Borges’s love of this poem, was well known. He translated it
with María in their weekly readings and upon completing the translation gave her
his prized copy.
On the opposing side, the inscription at the top is one that by now has
become quite familiar: “Hann tekr sverthtt Gram ok leggri methal their abert.”
Following that quote from the Völsunga Saga, comes a standard depiction of a
Viking long ship, and beneath the ship, the last inscription reads, “De Ulrica a
Javier Otárola.”
This thesis began with a somewhat lengthy exposition of Gramr, the sword
that represented the honor of a family: with it their honor had been secured, and
88
with it their honor was maintained. In the storied history of Argentina, Borges’s
family had been at the top; they were part of society’s elect. But eventually they
found themselves on the wrong political side and fell from such high esteem.
Once fallen from those heights, it became the mission of some and the obsession
of others, to return. Leonor Acevedo, Mother, impressed upon her son Georgie
that this great burden rested on him, but by the end of her life Mother came to
see things differently, Williamson observes:
In her last years, Leonor Acevedo appears to have seen this cult of the
ancestors under a different aspect…. She had come to appreciate that she
had herself been a victim of the sword of honor, and that it had bee the
sword, as it were, that had lain between her and Jorge [Sr.]…. As her life
drew to a close, it would appear also that she perceived what it was her son
required of her. On one occasion, when Borges asked María Kodoma to
read to his bedridden mother, Doña Leonor took Georgie’s hand and then
reached out for María’s, and since by that stage she lacked the strength to
speak, she could do no more than bring their hands together over her
ailing body. (417)
This sword that had been consciously and subconsciously hanging over him for
almost eighty years, it had, with this gesture been metaphorically lifted. By him,
the Borges name had regained its former glory, and now he would be permitted
to have his Brynhild unimpeded.
Symbolically, the flow of inscriptions on Borges’s monument creates two,
similar mini-narratives. In a more global sense, the front side depicts the
overwhelming power and force of the Vikings, the North men, over the English.
89
On the back, that same power and force is conveyed but on a more inter-personal
level: the self-imposed restrictions and boundaries are overcome by the dreamlike strength of a Nordic woman’s will—the symbol of reticence, Sigurd’s sword, is
removed by Ulrica. The sense of loneliness and solipsism of “Undr” is overcome
by the enduring presence of another. For this, Borges looked on, as Burone
observed, with pleasure as he envisioned his introverted scholar being taken in
and overcome by his Ulrica, by his María.
Conclusion
The Nordic literature was a natural fit. The trickery and illusion of Snorri’s Prose
Edda, the decadence of the kennings, and the pseudo-history of the sagas, all
seemed to prefigure Borges. They were his precursors as he would go on to
become theirs.
Borges’s strong reading of Scandinavian texts likewise assumes a dual role.
As the survey in chapter two of Borges’s translation, poetry, and criticism and the
readings of “Undr” and “Ulrica” in chapter three, have shown, the Scandinavian
texts proved particularly malleable to his strong readings. He was able to subvert
the tradition in creating new texts, texts that featured his more global, political,
and historical concerns and also texts that evinced his greatest personal and
familial anxieties.
90
91
Works Cited
Alifano, Roberto. Borges, biografía verbal. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés, 1988.
Allard, Joe. Rev. of The Complete Sagas of the Icelanders: Including 49 Tales,
Ed. Viðar Hreinsson. New Comparison 26 (1998): 157–69.
Bioy, Casares A, and Daniel Martino. Borges. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones
Destino, 2006.
Borges, Jorge Luis. El Aleph. Spain: Alianza Editorial, 2008.
_____. The Aleph and Other Stories, 1933–1969. New York: E. P. Dutton and
Co., Inc., 1970.
_____. Antiguas Literaturas Germanicas. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura
Económica, 1951.
_____. “Así escribo mis cuentos.” Técnicas de Verosimilitud e Intensidad. Vol.
3. Ed. Marqués de Leganés. Madrid: Imprime Publicaciones Digitales,
2002. 25–34.
_____. “An Autobiographical Essay.” The Aleph and Other Stories 1933–1969.
New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1970. 203–60.
_____. “Indagación de la Palabra.” El Idioma de los Argentinos. Buenos Aires:
Seix Barral, 1994.
_____. “The Kenning.” The New Yorker 26 Jan. 1976. 36.
_____. Literaturas Germanicas Medievales. Buenos Aires: Falbo Librero
Editor, 1965.
_____. “La literatura alemana en la época de Bach.” Textos Recobrados 1931
1955. Buenos Aires: Emecé Editoriales, 2003. 312–22.
_____. Obras Completas. 4 Vols. Ed. Carlos V. Frías. Barcelona: Emecé, 1989.
92
_____. A Personal Anthology. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1968.
_____. “Profesión de Fe Literaria.” El Tamaño de Mi Esperanza. Buenos Aires:
Seix Barral, 1993.
_____. “Seis Poemas Escandinavos.” Textos Recobrados 1956–1986. Buenos
Aires: Emecé Editoriales, 2003.
_____. Selected Non-Fiction. Trans. Esther Allen, Suzanne Levine, and Eliot
Weinberger. Ed. Eliot Weinberger. New York: Viking, 1999.
_____. Selected Poems. Ed. Alexander Coleman. New York: Viking, 1999.
_____. “El Taller del Escritor.” Textos Recobrados 1956–1986. Buenos
Aires: Emecé Editoriales, 2003. 353–8.
“Borgesian, adj.” OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 29 April
2013
<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/251269?redirectedFrom=Borgesian>.
Brant, Herbert J. “Dreams and Death: Borges’ El Libro de Arena.” Hispanófila
107 (1993): 71–86.
de Nobile, Beatriz. Palabras con Norah Lange. Buenos Aires: Carlos Pérez, 1968.
Fernandez, Teodosio. “Jorge Luis Borges y el Destino Escandinavo.” La aurora y
el poniente. Eds. Manuel Fuentes and Paco Tovar. Tarragona: Universitat
Rovira i Virgili. 89–96.
Franca, Mariani. “Los Incipit de El Libro de Arena.” Variaciones Borges 1 (1996):
87–99.
Gargan, Edward A. “Jorge Luis Borges, a Master of Fantasy and Fable, is Dead.”
New York Times 15 June 1986.
Johannessen, Matthías. Samtöl. Vol. 2. Reykjavik: Almenna bókafélagið, 1978.
93
Kristal, Efraín. Invisible Work: Borges and Translation. Nashville: Vanderbilt
UP, 2002.
Ibister, Rob and Peter Standish. A Concordance to the Works of Jorge Luis
Borges (1899–1986) Argentine Author. 7 Vols. Lewiston: The Edwin
Mellen Press, 1991.
Margrét Jónsdóttir. “Borges y la literatura islandesa medieval.” Acta Poetica
16:Spring (1995): 123–57.
Sigrún Ásríður Eiríksdóttir. “Borges’ Icelandic Subtext: The Saga Model.”
Neophilologus 71:3 (1987): 381–7.
_____. “Icelandic Sagas and Archetypes in Jorge Luis Borges’ ‘Undr.’” Essays on
Hispanic Themes in Honour of Edward C. Riley. Eds. Jennifer Lowe and
Philip Swanson. Edinburgh: Department of Hispanic Studies University of
Edinburgh, 1989. 315–30.
Snorri Sturluson. The Prose Edda. Trans. Jesse Byock. New York: Penguin, 2005.
Stewart, Jon. “Idealism in Two Stories from The Book of Sand.” Variaciones
Borges 7 (1999): 50–65.
The Story of the Volsungs and Niblungs with Certain Songs from the Elder
Edda. Trans. William Morris and Eiríkr Magnússon. London: George Prior
Publishers, 1870.
Vǫlsunga Saga. Trans. Kaaren Grimstad. Saarbrücken: AQ-Verlag, 2000.
"Ultraism." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online
Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 04 Apr.
2013. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/613422/Ultraism>.
94
Appendix
A Islandia (1971)
De las regiones de la hermosa tierra
Que mi carne y su sombra han fatigado
Eres la más remota y la más íntima,
Última Thule, Islandia de las naves,
Del terco arado y del constante remo,
De las tendidas redes marineras,
De esa curiosa luz de tarde inmóvil
Que efunde el vago cielo desde el alba
Y del viento que busca los perdidos
Velámenes del viking. Tierra sacra
Que fuiste la memoria de Germania
Y rescataste su mitología de una selva de hierro y de su lobo
Y de la nave que los dioses temen,
Labrada con las uñas de los muertos.
Islandia, te he soñado largamente
Desde aquella mañana en que mi padre
Le dio al niño que he sido y que no ha muerto
Una versión de la Völsunga Saga
Que ahora está descifrando mi penumbra
Con la ayuda del lento diccionario.
Cuando el cuerpo se cansa de su hombre,
95
Cuando el fuego declina y ya es ceniza,
Bien está el resignado aprendizaje
De una empresa infinita; yo he elegido
El de tu lengua, ese latín del Norte
Que abarcó las estepas y los mares
De un hemisferio y resonó en Bizancio
Y en las márgenes vírgenes de América.
Sé que no la sabré, pero me esperan
Los eventuales dones de la busca,
No el fruto sabiamente inalcanzable.
Lo mismo sentirán quienes indagan
Los astros o la serie de los números …
Sólo el amor, el ignorante amor, Islandia.
(To Iceland
Of the beautiful regions of the earth / that my flesh and its shadow have
tired out / you are the most remote and intimate, / Ultima Thule, Iceland
of the vessels / of the stubborn plough and of the constant oar / of the shy
sea nets / of the curious light of the motionless afternoon / that effuses the
idle heavens from dawn / and of the wind that seeks the lost / sails of the
Vikings. Sacred earth / you were the memory of Germania / and you
rescued the mythology / from a jungle of iron and from the wolf / and
from the boat that the gods fear, / built with the nails of the dead. /
Iceland, I have long dreamed of you / from that long ago morning in which
my father / gave you to the boy I have been, which hasn’t died / a version
96
of the Völsunga Saga / that is now deciphering my twilight / with the slow
help of the dictionary. / When a man’s body tires / when the fire declines
to ash, / good is the resignation of learning / an infinite undertaking; I
have chosen / your language, this Latin of the North / that covered the
flatlands and the seas / of a hemisphere and resounded in Byzantium /
and in the virgin peripheries of America. / I know I will not master it, but I
hope for / the potential gifts of the search, / not the fruit wisely
inaccessible. / Similarly feel those that study / the stars or numerical
series… / Only love, unsophisticated love, Iceland.)
Islandia (1976)
Qué dicha par todos los hombres,
Islandia de los mares, que existas.
Islandia de la nieve silenciosa y del agua ferviente.
Islandia de la noche que se aboveda
sobre la vigilia y el sueño.
Isla del día blanco que regresa,
joven y mortal como Baldr.
Fría rosa, isla secreta
que fuiste la memoria de Germania
y salvaste para nosotros
su apagada, enterrada mitología
el anillo que engendra nueve anillos,
los altos lobos de la selva de hierro
97
que devorarán la luna y el sol,
la nave que Alguien o Algo construye
con uñas de los muertos.
Islandia de los cráteres que esperan,
y de las tranquilas majadas.
Islandia de las tardes inmóviles
y de los hombres fuertes
que son ahora marineros y barqueros y párrocos
y que ayer descubrieron un continente.
Isla de los caballos de larga crin
que engendran sobre el pasto y la lava,
isla del agua llena de monedas
y de no saciada esperanza.
Islandia de la espada y de la runa,
Islandia de la gran memoria cóncava
que no es una nostalgia.
(How fortunate for all men, / Iceland of the seas, that you exist. / Iceland
of the silent snow and of the fervent water. / Iceland of the night that
vaults / over wakefulness and dreams. / Island of the white day that
returns / young and mortal like Baldr. / Cold rose, secret island / you were
the memory for Germania / and you saved for us / its humble, buried
mythology, / the ring that generates nine rings, / the high wolves of the
iron jungle / that devour the moon and the sun, / the ship that Someone or
Something built / with the nails of the dead. / Iceland of the waiting
98
craters, / and of the tranquil corrals. / Iceland of the motionless
afternoons / and of strong men / that are now sailors, boatmen, and
parsons / and that yesterday discovered a continent. / Island of the horses
of long manes / that reproduce on the grass and lava, / island of the water
full of coins / and of unsated hope. / Island of the sword and of the runes,
/ Island of the great concave memory / that is not merely nostalgia)
99